Walker‐Massachusetts.

Methods	Allocation: by table of random numbers. Follow up: 6 months. Lost to follow‐up: 0%. Objectivity of rating of outcome: raters not independent.
Participants	Inclusion criteria: i. hospital in‐patient + 2 successful weeks in hospital work program; ii. recommended as capable of work by rehabilitation therapist; iii. willing to work; iv. cleared as suitable by psychiatrist. Diagnosis: schizophrenia, schizophrenia‐like disorders (50%). N=28. Age: U/K. Sex: all men. Race: U/K. History: ever married U/K, ever employed U/K, time since last employment U/K, previous admissions U/K. Setting: urban, Massachusetts, USA.
Interventions	1. Community‐based Hospital Industrial Rehabilitation Placement (CHIRP): i. placements in a regular industrial setting off grounds (˜a form of paid sheltered workshop); ii. supervision by member of rehabilitation staff from hospital; iii. transport; iv. could continue to attend after leaving hospital; v. standard hospital and community care. N=14. 2. Control: standard hospital and community care, could not attend CHIRP. N=14.
Outcomes	Time in competitive employment (excluding CHIRP) Not participating in program. Unable to use ‐ Obtaining competitive employment (data unclear). Earnings: median monthly (no mean, SD).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Low risk	A ‐ Adequate