Tsang 2001.
| Methods | Allocation: cluster‐randomised Design: multi‐arm (3), multi centre (9) Duration: 3 months Country: Hong Kong, China |
|
| Participants | N = 97 Diagnosis: schizophrenia, no less than 1 year cumulative hospitalisation Setting: 9 community‐based, staffed residential facilities for ex‐mentally ill people. Participants were recruited from halfway houses and sheltered workshops Age: between 18‐50 years, mean 35.7 years Gender: 62% male Ethnicity: Hong Kong Chinese, who spoke Cantonese, not English, 98% of Hong Kong residents are Chinese Substance abuse: ‐ Living situation: staffed residential facilities Marital status: ‐ Employment status: unemployed, mean duration of unemployment 41 months Working history: eligibility criteria: previous occupation: blue collar, low‐level clerical, or service industry Motivation: willingness to participate in a work‐related social skills programme Education: no less than 5 years of primary school and no more than 5 years of secondary school, 30% finished primary school, 29% F1‐F3 (grade 7‐9), 35% F4‐F5 (grade 10‐11) Disability benefit: ‐. Excluded: learning disability |
|
| Interventions |
Social skills training group (N = 26)* Hierarchical stages of learning were established based on a foundation of basic social skills and basic social survival skills followed by core work‐related skills, including those related to job securing and job retaining. The programme consisted of 10 weekly group sessions lasting 1.5‐2 h, with approximately 6‐8 members in each group. Each training group was facilitated by a trained occupational therapist assisted by an untrained welfare worker experienced in working with this client group. Social skills training group with follow‐up contacts (N = 30)* Received the social skills training plus follow‐up contact with group members and the trainer for 3 months gathered at a monthly meeting conducted by one of the occupational therapists who had run the training groups. These occasions were not as structured as the programme itself, and participants were encouraged to share their experiences of job hunting and job keeping. Control group (n = 41) Received standard psychiatric care on an outpatient basis |
|
| Outcomes | Percentage of participants who obtained competitive employment | |
| Notes | *We merged the 2 social skills training groups together for the analyses 'Gainfully employed' seems to be competitive because of the job types reported: caretaker, security guard, waiter, junior clerk |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "Randomisation was achieved by randomly assigning each of the 9 residential facilities to one of the three group conditions" Unclear if participants were recruited before or after randomisation. Design effect not reported |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No details |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | "All participants were blind to research design. Participants did not know that there were groups with and without follow‐up." |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | "The raters were blind to study design and the group status of the participants" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | No details, but big numbers are unlikely because of short follow‐up |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All listed outcomes were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | No details about study funding |