Bjorkman‐Sweden 2002.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Design: single centre. Duration: 36 months. Country: Lund, Sweden.
Participants	Diagnosis*: serious mental illness, according to DSM‐III‐R. N = 77. Setting: community psychiatric service. Age*: 19 to 55 years, mean ˜ 37 years. Sex: 36M, 41F. Ethnicity: not reported. History: i. serious mental illness for > 2 yrs, ii. impairment due to illness (social‐relationship, housing, or work situation) for more than 2 yrs, iii. no primary diagnosis of substance‐ or alcohol‐related disorders, iv. informed consent given.
Interventions	1. ICM: Case Management service based on the Strength Model. Caseload: ˜ 1:9. N = 33. 2. Standard care: comprehensive psychiatric service with joint management for outpatient, inpatient, and day care facilities. N = 44.
Outcomes	Service use: average number of days in hospital per month, not remaining in contact with psychiatric services, admitted to hospital. Death: suicide. Global state: leaving the study early, GAF. Social functioning: Strauss‐Carpenter Scale, social network (ISSI). Mental state: general symptoms, SCL‐90. Quality of life: LQoLP. Participant satisfaction: CAN. Unable to use ‐ Client satisfaction: questionnaire by the Swedish Institute for Health Services Development (modified version, not peer reviewed).
Notes	*51.9% schizophrenia‐like disorder. **ICM group significantly older than standard care group (5 yrs older on average).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised: used a computer random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Random selection performed by one of the trialist. No further details.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Primary outcomes: clinician/participant mediated ‐ rating ‐ Unclear. Secondary outcomes: interviewer rated ‐ rating ‐ Unclear. Interviewers formally blind to participant group allocation. Not tested.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Problematic to blind participants and those providing the intervention in studies comparing ICM intervention with standard care.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Clinical (mental state) and social function assessed by independent raters. Blinding not tested. Service utilisation. Blinding not reported. Participant's and relative's satisfaction self reported, not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Analysis performed on an ITT basis, but "clients who were not available for or refused contact at follow‐up were excluded from the respective analysis on an individual basis".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All listed outcomes of interest reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No details. No evidence of the presence of other bias.