Muijen‐UK2 1994.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Design: single centre. Duration: 18 months. Country: Greenwich Health District, London, UK.
Participants	Diagnosis*: severe mental illness: psychotic disorder (schizophrenia or affective psychosis) (diagnostic criteria not reported). N = 82. Setting: Health District. Age: 18 to 64 years, mean ˜ 37 years. Sex: 56% M (46M, 36F). Race: 23.1% African/Afro‐Caribbean. History**: schizophrenia or affective psychosis lasting > 2 years, ≧ 2 hospital admissions last 2 years, about to be discharged, no primary organic disorder.
Interventions	1. ICM: Case Management approach provided by a Community Support Team (community psychiatric nurses and team leader). The team acts as advocate, practical assistance with welfare benefits and housing, no‐discharge policy. Caseload: 1:8‐11 for the first 15 months (until April 1990), then increased to caseload: 1:20‐25 for the last 3 months, until the end of the trial. N = 41. 2. Standard care: provided by community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) working independently and based in primary care. N = 41.
Outcomes	Service use: average number of days in hospital per month. Death: all causes and suicide. Global state: leaving the study early. Mental state: BPRS 24‐item, PSE. Social functioning scale: GAS, SAS, imprisoned. Participant satisfaction (by short term). Costs: direct costs of all care. Unable to use ‐ Social functioning: accomodation (authors reported data on "patients using hostel accommodations"; it is unclear what is included in this definition). Participant satisfaction (by medium and long term). Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) (attrition > 50%). Carer satisfaction (attrition > 50%). Costs: other costs (no SD).
Notes	*Schizophrenia‐like disorder 83%; mania 12%; psychotic depression 0.5%. **Baseline mean number of admissions: 5.7.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomised. No details.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Primary outcome: clinician/participant mediated ‐ rating ‐ Unclear. Secondary outcomes: those interviewer rated ‐ rating ‐ Unclear. No details.
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	Service use, income, and accomodation data were collected using the Client Service Receipt Interview. Information was also taken from case records on frequency and duration of input from CPNs. Blinding not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Number of lost to follow‐up is stated, but reason for attrition is reported generically, referred to the entire sample size and not the single intervention sample.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	All listed outcomes of interest are fully reported (but some economic outcomes missing any variance measurement).
Other bias	Low risk	No details. No evidence of the presence of other bias.