Study	Reason for exclusion
Adams‐Shollenberger	Allocation: not randomised, a survey comparing absenteeism rates.
Ax‐Salem	Allocation: randomised. Participants: diagnosis unclear, at least one third had alcohol problems only, hence excluded. Intervention: PVT (job club) versus no intervention.
Azrin‐Illinois	Allocation: randomised (coin flip). Participants: diagnosis unclear, not all severely mentally ill, many had physical handicaps alone, hence excluded. Intervention: PVT (job club) versus advice on finding work.
Bailey‐New Hampshire	Allocation: not randomised, before and after study.
Becker‐Boston	Allocation: not randomised, retrospective case series.
Bell‐Connecticut2	Allocation: not randomised (quasi‐experimental study comparing a hospital‐based VR program with two other inpatient treatment units).
Block‐Canada	Allocation: not randomised, before and after study.
Bond‐Chicago2	Allocation: randomised. Participants: people with severe mental disorder Interventions: Assertive Community Treatment versus standard care. This trial of Assertive Community Treatment versus standard care happened to report vocational outcomes, but did not involve and any specific vocational rehabilitation intervention ‐ hence excluded.
Briggs‐Minnesota	Allocaton: randomised. Participants: people with severe mental disorder Interventions: PVT (vocational counselling) versus standard community care. Outcomes: Excluded as not possible to do an intention‐to‐treat analysis. The number randomised appears to be fewer than the numbers followed up. Two different conflicting figures are given for the number of people recruited ‐ excluded pending clarification. (Even if included, the study does not report any data that could be used in the review).
Campbell‐Massachus	Allocation: not randomised ‐ quasi‐experimental design. Participants: people with severe mental disorder Interventions: PVT (sheltered workshop) versus PVT (an "industry‐integrated model").
Chandler‐Stanislaus	(This trial is described in the same paper as the included trial Chandler‐Long Beach.) Allocation: randomised. Participants: people with severe mental disorder Interventions: Assertive Community Treatment versus standard community care. This trial of Assertive Community Treatment versus standard care happened to report vocational outcomes, but did not involve and any specific vocational rehabilitation intervention ‐ hence excluded.
Drake‐New Hampshire2	Allocaton: not randomised, quasi‐experimental design. Participants: people with severe mental disorder attending a two rehabilitative day centres. Intervention: SE (one day centre closed and converted to SE program) versus rehabilitative day centre.
Fabian‐Maryland	Allocation: not randomised, a survey comparing employed and unemployed participants.
Faulkner‐Virginia	Allocation: not randomised, before and after design.
Huxley‐Colorado	Allocation: not randomised, a survey comparing patients attending a Clubhouse program with controls from a neighbouring area.
Jennings‐Virginia	Allocation: randomised. Participants: diagnosis unclear, hence excluded. Interventions: PVT enhanced by a psychological group treatment for enhancing participation versus unenhanced PVT.
Kaufman‐Pittsburgh	Allocaton: randomised. Participants: people with severe mental disorders referred to a self‐help employment centre. Interventions: PVT approach (self‐help employment centre) versus standard care ‐ control condition unclear ‐ all controls were referred to other VR services, but it is unclear how many (if any) actually engaged. Outcomes: no usable data ‐ numbers randomised to treatment and control groups were not specified, hence it was not possible to report the number in employment on an intention to treat basis.
Keith‐Michigan	Allocation: randomised. Participants: not all participants were mentally ill, hence excluded. Interventions: psychological approach for enhancing the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation versus standard vocational rehabilitation counselling provided by the same agency.
Kregel‐Virginia	Allocation: not randomised, a large survey of participants in Supported Employment services.
Luo‐Nanjing	Allocation: not randomised, retrospective cohort study.
McAlpine‐San Francis	Allocation: not randomised, quasi‐experimental study comparing vocational outcome in patients receiving assertive community treatment with those receiving standard community care.
Noble‐New York	Allocation: not randomised, compared clients in a Clubhouse program to those in newly developed Supported Employment Program.
Olah‐Ohio	Allocation: not randomised, matched group design, examining effectiveness of a group intervention to increase self efficacy in people with mental disorder versus no intervention.
Otero‐Spain	Allocation: not randomised, before and after study of a rehabilitation program for people with chronic schizophrenia.
Proudfoot‐London	Allocation: randomised. Participants: not mentally ill, hence excluded. Interventions: occupational training program (incorporating cognitive behavioural therapy) versus a program that emphasised social support.
Purvis‐Denver	Allocation: randomised. Participants: discharged psychiatric patients. Interventions: group "community follow‐up" versus individual "community follow‐up" versus a control group ‐ experimental interventions included "vocational counseling" but did not appear to involve any active vocational rehabilitation in the sense of either prevocational training of supported employment.
Ryan‐Connecticut	Allocation: randomised. Participants: patients recently discharged from hospital. Interventions: PVT versus standard community care. Outcomes: not an intention to treat analysis ‐ patients randomly assigned whilst inpatients, but any who were judged not ready for discharge within two months were dropped from study. Similarly, any who failed to complete 3 months in the PVT after allocation were dropped. The trial seems to report data only on people who met these conditions after randomisation.
Sauter‐New York	Allocation: randomised. Participants: people with chronic schizophrenia attending a sheltered work shop. Interventions: work skills training for sheltered workshop participants verus sheltered workshop alone. Outcomes: increasing productivity rates, not concerned with employment outcomes ‐ hence excluded.
Stein‐Madison	Allocation: randomised. Participants: people with severe mental illness requiring admission to hospital. Interventions: Assertive Community Treatment versus hospital admission. Vocational outcomes were reported but excluded as the intervention did not involve any specific vocational rehabilitation component.
Tomaras‐Athens	Allocation: not randomised, before and after study.
Velasquez‐Minnesota	Allocation: randomised. Participants: young adults with psychotic, neurotic or personality disorder. Interventions: residential milieu therapy versus standard community care. Vocational outcomes were reported, but the intervention did not involve any specific vocational component.

PVT ‐ Pre‐vocational Training 
 VR ‐ Vocational Rehabilitation