Article Details

Research Database: Article Details

Citation:  Bond, G. R., Drake, R.E., & Becker, D. R. (2008). An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31 (4), 280-290.
Title:  An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment
Authors:  Bond, G. R., Drake, R.E., & Becker, D. R.
Year:  2008
Journal/Publication:  Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Publisher:  American Psychological Association
DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2975/31.4.2008.280.290
Full text:  http://proxy.library.vcu.edu/login?url=http://psycnet.apa.org/journ...    |   PDF   
Peer-reviewed?  Yes
NIDILRR-funded?  Not reported
Research design:  Systematic review / meta-analysis

Structured abstract:

Background:  Supported employment is the best described and most widely used practice for supporting people with mental illness. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) evidence accumulates quickly; as such, reviews of RCTs become obsolete as new data become available.
Purpose:  The current review was conducted to provide a "comprehensive summary of competitive employment outcomes for RCTs evaluating evidence-based supported employment for this population" (p. 281).
Setting:  This study is a systematic review. The included studies were undertaken in various locations and settings
Study sample:  To be included in this review, a study had to be an RCT design, which examined longitudinal competitive employment outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Participants must have been "randomly assigned to two or more conditions, one of which used a high-fidelity IPS supported employment model" (p. 281). Another requirement for inclusion in this review was that the control group(s) must have received services as usual, other than IPS. Eleven studies were included in the current literature review that included individuals with mental illness.
Intervention:  Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment
Control or comparison condition:  There were no comparison or control conditions.
Data collection and analysis:  "Three main sources were used to identify studies" (p. 281). The first source was published literature reviews, the second was to review studies in the Employment Intervention Demonstration Project, and the third was to contact "principal investigators and continuous review of the published literature" (p. 281). Data were recorded directly from published reports or calculated by hand from the information presented.
Findings:  Comprehensive employment rates were significantly higher for IPS (61%) than for the control groups (23%). In addition, people in IPS worked 20 hours per week or more (43.6%), compared to the control groups (14.2%). The average time to obtain a job for people with IPS was 50% faster than those in the control groups, ranging between 4 and 5 months for those with IPS. The average weeks worked for those with IPS was over two times that of the control groups.
Conclusions:  The majority of IPS participants obtain competitive employment at a significantly higher rate than those in other vocational programs. Most IPS participants work part-time, possibly due to health or financial considerations. In addition, the IPS model supports a rapid job placement; most clients are placed are placed in a competitive job within the first six months.

Disabilities served:  Chronic mental illness
Schizophrenia
Populations served:  Gender: Female and Male
Race: Asian
Race: Black / African American
Race: White / Caucasian
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
Interventions:  Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment
Supported employment
Outcomes:  Employment acquisition