McGurk 2007.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Design: multi centre Duration: 2‐3 years, average follow‐up was 26 months Country: New York City, New York, USA
Participants	N = 48 Diagnosis: severe mental illness as determined by the State of New York Office of Mental Health. Included: 73% schizophrenia, 4% schizoaffective disorder, 23% mood disorder Setting: 2 CMH centres. Both agencies serve predominantly people from minority groups and provide a comprehensive range of services: housing, psychiatric, community support, day treatment, psychosocial, and integrated vocational services (including SE) Age: mean 37.6 years Gender: 55% male Ethnicity: 68% African American, 16% Hispanic Substance abuse: 9% current alcohol use, 30% lifetime alcohol use, 7% current drug use, 53% lifetime drug use Living situation: ‐ Marital status: 86% never married Employment status: not currently competitively employed Working history: all participants had at least one unsatisfactory job ending. Mean time since last job: 40 months Motivation: desire for competitive work Education: mean: 11 years of education Disability benefit:‐ Excluded:‐
Interventions	SE + cognitive training (N = 25) The Thinking Skills for Work Program was designed as an adjunct to SE. It was divided into 4 component parts and was delivered by a cognitive training specialist. Clients were engaged in 24 hours of computer‐based cognitive exercises (Cogpack v6) providing practice across the broad range of cognitive functions, including attention and concentration, psychomotor speed, learning and memory, and executive functions. Sessions required 45–60 minutes to complete, with clients usually completing 2–3 sessions per week for a total duration of about 12 weeks. Participants received performance scores in order to reinforce performance progress. The cognitive training specialist, the employment specialist, and the client met together to plan the job search, based on the client’s preferences. Then, a meeting was held to review the client’s job interests, to evaluate his or her cognitive strengths and gains made in the computer cognitive training exercises, and to consider possible support to compensate for cognitive impairments that could compromise work performance. The cognitive training specialist and the employment specialist met regularly to discuss job supports. Supported employment (N = 23) Both sites had SE programmes that broadly adhered to evidence‐based definitions of the practice. Both programmes had zero exclusion criteria, no PVT, minimal prevocational assessment, emphasis on rapid job search for competitive employment in integrated community settings, attention to consumer preferences with respect to jobs sought and disclosure of psychiatric disability, and provision of follow‐along supports to facilitate job retention Fidelity was rated with the Supported Employment Fidelity scale. The first 2 study authors conducted the fidelity assessments with sites receiving ratings of "fair" (score 60) and "good" (score 66) implementation
Outcomes	Number of participants who obtained competitive employment Weeks in competitive employment Mental health (PANSS) Hospital admissions (no usable data) Dropouts
Notes	Competitive work was defined as jobs paying minimum wage or higher, owned by the individual, not set aside for a person with a disability, and integrated in the community
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Assignment to the programmes was conducted on the basis of a computer‐generated randomisation list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Individuals were randomly assigned within each centre." No further details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel could identify given intervention by content of programme
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Vocational outcomes were assessed through regular contacts with clients and vocational staff members. No details about blinding but unlikely
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	48 clients were randomised (25 in intervention and 23 in control group). Soon after randomisation 2 clients (1 in intervention group, 1 in control group) withdrew consent from the study due to serious medical conditions, and 1 client (control) died. One client left vocational services and was lost to follow‐up within a month after randomisation. Twelve‐month employment data were available on 32 (67%) clients, rates of follow‐up were comparable between the 2 groups. No details about attrition rate after 2‐3 years
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All listed outcomes are reported
Other bias	Low risk	Supported by grant from the Center for Rehabilitation and Recovery, Coalition of Behavioral Health Agencies, Inc., New York Clients recruited for the project at CMHC A differed in a number of background and baseline characteristics from clients recruited from CMHC B. Because of these site differences, they included site as an independent variable. No significant differences between intervention and control group