You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 4
  • Work as treatment? The effectiveness of re-employment programmes for unemployed persons with severe mental health problems on health and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Review
Work as treatment? The effectiveness of re-employment programmes for unemployed persons with severe mental health problems on health and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Rogier M van Rijn,
  2. Bouwine E Carlier,
  3. Merel Schuring,
  4. Alex Burdorf
  1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Rogier M van Rijn, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Room NA2219, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands; r.vanrijn{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Given the importance of unemployment in health inequalities, re-employment of unemployed persons into paid employment may be a powerful intervention to increase population health. It is suggested that integrated programmes of vocational reintegration with health promotion may improve the likelihood of entering paid employment of long-term unemployed persons with severe mental health problems. However, the current evidence regarding whether entering paid employment of this population will contribute to a reduction in health problems remains unambiguous. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of re-employment programmes with regard to health and quality of life. Three electronic databases were searched (up to March 2015). Two reviewers independently selected articles and assessed the risk of bias on prespecified criteria. Measures of effects were pooled and random effect meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted, where possible. Sixteen studies were included. Nine studies described functioning as an outcome measure. Five studies with six comparisons provided enough information to calculate a pooled effect size of −0.01 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.11). Fifteen studies presented mental health as an outcome measure of which six with comparable psychiatric symptoms resulted in a pooled effect size of 0.20 (95% CI −0.23 to 0.62). Thirteen studies described quality of life as an outcome measure. Seven of these studies, describing eight comparisons, provided enough information to calculate a pooled effect size of 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.52). Re-employment programmes have a modest positive effect on the quality of life. No evidence was found for any effect of these re-employment programmes on functioning and mental health.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-103121

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Unemployment is a major cause of socioeconomic health inequalities. Prolonged periods of unemployment are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality of 63%,1 an 80% increased risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events,2 a twofold risk of experiencing a limiting illness,3 and a 3.5% increased prevalence of poor mental health.4 Whether unemployment will also lead to the onset or aggravation of severe mental disorders remains unclear. However, unemployment rates among persons with severe mental disorders, for example, schizophrenia, are high (80–90%).5 Besides, unemployment has been associated with a twofold increased prevalence of smoking6 ,7 and a 1.5 times increased prevalence of excessive alcohol use.7 Thus, unemployment may lead to poor health, which in turn will reduce the probability of re-employment.8–10

    Observational studies have provided ample evidence that entering paid employment can improve health. A meta-analysis of 15 longitudinal studies showed significant improvements in mental health (effect size 0.89), life satisfaction (effect size 3.04) and subjective physical health (effect size 0.38) among workers who re-entered paid employment.11 Another systematic review of 33 prospective studies showed that entering paid employment reduced the risk of depression (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.83) and improved general mental health (OR 3.8 and effect size 0.66).12 A recent systematic review of Luciano et al13 showed that entering paid employment was associated with decreased psychiatric treatment and increased self-esteem. These results from observational studies are reflected in the powerful message of the so-called Black report on the health of Britain's working-age population: ‘Work, matched to one's knowledge and skills and undertaken in a safe, healthy environment, can reverse the harmful effects of prolonged sickness or long term unemployment, and promote health, well-being and prosperity’.14

    Re-employment of unemployed persons may be a powerful intervention to reduce health inequalities. Crowther et al15 showed in their meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that people with severe mental illness who received supported employment were more likely to be in competitive employment than those enrolled in a conventional training-placement programme with 34% versus 12% in paid employment after 1 year, respectively. A recent systematic review reported that those who received supported employment were more likely to be in competitive employment (52–60%) compared to control conditions (23%–30%).16

    These systematic reviews show that intervention studies have focused on effectiveness for vocational outcomes, such as entering paid employment, hours of paid work per month and income received. The evidence for effectiveness on health-related outcomes is scarce. Two RCTs have reported positive effects such as 4% higher quality of life score17 and 38% reduced healthcare costs.18 However, another RCT on employment interventions did not find any beneficial effects on health or healthcare costs.15 Hence, the current evidence whether entering paid employment of unemployed persons with severe mental health problems will contribute to a reduction in health problems remains unambiguous. Therefore, our aim was to provide a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of re-employment programmes for health and to estimate in a meta-analysis the magnitude of these health benefits.

    Materials and methods

    Literature search

    This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist.19 Comprehensive literature searches were conducted by the first author (RMvR) in Medline, Embase and PsycInfo (to March 2015). The full search strategy is presented in online supplementary appendix I.

    On the basis of the title and abstract, two reviewers (RMvR and MS) selected the articles for full-text appraisal and final inclusion. Each article had to fulfil all of the following criteria: (I) participants were unemployed, aged between 18 and 65 years, and had mental health problems, (II) the intervention must consist of a form of job placement (eg, competitive employment, sheltered employment), (III) the study design was a randomised controlled trial, (IV) the outcome measures must be health related (eg, physical health, mental health, health status) and (V) the article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and written in English. A consensus method was used to resolve disagreements. The references of all included studies were checked for other possibly relevant articles.

    Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

    Two reviewers (RMvR, BEC) independently assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.20 We added one item (10b) concerning fidelity to the methodology of the intervention (see online supplementary appendix I). Each item was rated as showing low, high or unclear risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.

    Data extraction

    Relevant information was collected on the characteristics of the study population (eg, age, gender, sample size, health problems), health outcomes (eg, physical health, mental health, health status, etc), intervention content, and proportion of persons in competitive employment within the period of intervention. The core findings in each article were expressed by effect sizes. Where possible, these effect sizes were directly extracted from the original article. For articles in which this information was not presented, effect sizes were calculated using raw data.

    Data analysis

    The effect size was calculated in Review Manager V.5.3 with the Hedges’ g approach, wherein the mean difference at follow-up is divided by the pooled weighted SD at follow-up.20 Unless otherwise indicated, a positive effect size indicated a beneficial effect of integrated programmes of vocational reintegration with health promotion concerning health outcome. We examined potential publication bias using funnel plots. The I2 statistics were used to determine the percentage of total variation across studies, that is, due to heterogeneity rather than chance.21 Owing to the observed heterogeneity, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses on each independent health outcome (using Review Manager 5.3). The pooled effect sizes were calculated according to the Hedges’ g approach, which takes into account the size of the study and provides a weighted effect size. Finally, a meta-regression analysis was carried out to identify follow-up duration, mean difference of the percentage persons in competitive employment, proportion of male, and proportion of persons diagnosed with schizophrenia as potential determinants of the effect size.

    Results

    Characteristics of the included studies

    Our search of the literature resulted in 2091 potentially relevant articles. After title and abstract screening, 1302 articles were retrieved for full-text appraisal. Finally, 16 articles were included in the study (figure 1). Exclusion of articles was mainly due to a lack of health outcome measures (n=42); the study design was not a randomised controlled trial (n=34) or absence of job placement within the intervention (n=21). Most of the included studies presented more than one outcome measure, which can be classified into: functioning (n=9), mental health (n=15) and quality of life (n=13) (see online supplementary appendix II).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Flow chart of the included studies.

    In 12 of 16 studies, the intervention was Individual Placement and Support (IPS). IPS emphasises integration of vocational and healthcare services, rapid job finding, obtaining competitive employment that corresponds to the clients’ preferences and clinical and rehabilitative needs, and follow-along support at the job.22 Some studies used a derivate of IPS like Compensated Work Therapy (CWT),23 Assertive Community Treatment with Individual Placement Support (Act-IPS)24 or integrated supported employment combined with work-related social skills training.25 In all studies, the control group received traditional vocational rehabilitation which consists of pre-employment training and medical care as usual. There is some variation between studies in the traditional vocational rehabilitation offered, but none of these programmes had competitive employment as their immediate goal.

    Most studies defined competitive employment as a job in the open labour market that anyone could hold with a minimum wage or higher. Some studies used supplementary criteria like that the job was independently held with the participant in continuous employment for at least 30 days18; that fewer than 50% of the participant co-workers had disabilities26; and self-employment was also reckoned as competitive employment.26 The funnel plots in online supplementaryappendix I show that for none of the health outcomes was there an indication of publication bias.

    Assessment of risk of bias

    Figure 2 shows the overall assessment of risk of bias. The initial agreement of the reviewers on the total assessment of risk of bias was 72% (146 of 204 items). All disagreements were solved in a consensus meeting. A high risk of bias was found with regard to blinding. In eight studies (50%), blinding of participants and personnel and the outcome assessment were lacking. In 14 studies (75%), it was unclear whether cointerventions were avoided, or whether these were similar in the intervention group as well as in the control group.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Assessment of risk of bias.

    Functioning

    Nine studies described functioning as an outcome measure (see online supplementary appendix II).17 ,18 ,23 ,26–31 Functioning was measured using validated scales like Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)17 ,18 ,26–31 and Short-Form health survey (SF-36).23 Five studies, describing six comparisons, provided enough information to calculate effect sizes, ranging from −0.12 to 0.09, all not statistically significant (figure 3).17 ,18 ,27 ,29 ,30 The pooled effect size was −0.01 (95% CI −0.13 to 0.11). Within these studies, the percentage of competitive employed ranged from 13% to 55% in the intervention groups compared to 6% to 28% in the control groups. The meta-regression analysis showed no influence of study characteristics on the effect size of functioning.

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Forest plot of comparison between the intervention group (four studies with Individual Placement and Support, one study with Supported Employment) and control group regarding the outcome measure functioning.

    Mental health

    Fifteen studies described mental health as an outcome measure (see online supplementary appendix II).17 ,18 ,23–35 Mental health is the umbrella term for outcomes measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Rosenberg self-esteem scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Chinese General Self-efficacy Scale (CGSS). One study described a significant difference in self-efficacy in favour of the intervention group.25 Six studies, describing 12 comparisons, provided enough information to calculate effect sizes ranging from −0.58 to 1.39.17 ,18 ,25 ,27 ,30 ,34 Six studies measured psychiatric symptoms and the pooled effect size was 0.20 (95% CI −0.23 to 0.62) (figure 4).17 ,18 ,27 ,29 ,30 ,34 Within these studies, the percentage of competitive employment ranged from 13% to 55% in the intervention groups compared to 2% to 28% in the control groups. The meta-regression analysis showed that studies with over 50% of male participants had a lower effect size of mental health (β −1.43, 95% CI −2.12 to −0.74).

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Forest plot of comparison between the intervention group (five studies with Individual Placement and Support, one study with Supported Employment) and control group regarding the outcome measure mental health. A negative effect size means reduced symptoms.

    Quality of life

    Thirteen studies described quality of life as an outcome measure.17 ,18 ,24–28 ,31–34 ,36 ,37 Quality of life was measured using validated scales like the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA),18 ,32 ,35 the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile,27 Lehman's Quality of life interview,17 ,24 ,28 ,31 ,34 the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index26 ,36 or the WHO Quality of Life Measure. 33 Seven studies, describing eight comparisons, provided enough information to calculate effect sizes, ranging from 0.00 to 0.9917 ,18 ,25 ,27 ,32 ,34 ,36 with a pooled effect size of 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.52) (figure 5). Within these studies, the percentage of competitive employment ranged from 13% to 74% in the intervention groups compared to 2% to 68% in the control groups. The meta-regression analysis showed no influence of the study characteristics on the effect size of quality of life.

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Forest plot of comparison between the intervention group (six studies with Individual Placement and Support, one study with Supported Employment) and control group regarding the outcome measure quality of life.

    Discussion

    This systematic review showed some indications that re-employment programmes based on the place-then-train model had a positive effect on quality of life with a pooled effect size of 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.52). However, there is no evidence for benefits concerning mental health and functioning.

    These results seem to partly contradict observational studies that have provided evidence that entering paid employment can improve health9 and decrease psychiatric treatment.13 Mueser et al37 as well as Bond et al38 showed in their RCTs that after 18 months follow-up participants with severe mental illness who obtained competitive employment tended to have less psychiatric symptoms, better overall functioning and higher self-esteem.

    In the current systematic review, we could not demonstrate that entering paid employment of unemployed persons with severe mental health problems had a substantial impact on health status. The estimated pooled effect sizes were small and reflect modest clinically important differences. A few explanations can be discussed for the contrasting results between experimental and observational studies. First of all, observational studies present their effects between the group which became employed and the group which stayed unemployed. In an RCT setting, this would imply a comparison between 100% work resumption in the intervention group compared to 0% work resumption in the control group. However, in the studies in this review, the percentage of participants in competitive employment ranged from 13% to 74% in the intervention group compared with 2% to 68% in the control group. In our secondary analysis, a larger difference in the proportion of participants who gained paid employment between the intervention and control groups was not associated with higher effect size, although the number of studies available for this analysis was limited.

    Second, RCTs were generally conducted in small study populations typically varying from 37 to 132 persons per study arm, whereas observational studies investigated much larger populations. The modest sample size makes it difficult to demonstrate differences between groups, especially with regard to health outcomes. In addition, participants were followed up for a relatively short term (range 12–24 months) with few measurements compared to observational studies (range 1–15 years), which makes it difficult to determine the influence of work resumption on sustainability of (possible) health effects. In many RCTs, health outcomes were frequently presented as secondary outcomes, or were absent. Therefore, the studies were not primarily designed for demonstrating differences concerning health outcomes. Besides, in some studies, health was measured by the presence and severity of (chronic) health problems. During follow-up, the presence of (chronic) health problems will not change in many cases, whereas the individual’s resilience and capacity to cope with and to adapt according to health problems may change. Consequently, within vocational rehabilitation, outcome measures of health should reflect ‘health, as the ability to adapt and to self-manage’.39 Last, observational studies are susceptible to selection bias, whereas randomisation in RCTs ensures that prognostic factors are equally distributed across intervention and control groups. In observational studies, the healthy worker effect may have occurred, whereby healthier persons are more likely to enter paid employment and remain employed than persons with health problems. As a result, the findings of observational studies may be overestimated.

    In addition to these methodological issues, the year of conducting studies and policies on a national level concerning social protection may influence the association between employment and health. A prospective study of Martikainen and Valkonen40, for example, found that the association between unemployment and mortality weakened in periods with increasing unemployment rates. Furthermore, in countries with policies securing a high level of social protection, the impact of job loss on workers’ health was less compared to countries with limited social protection. McLeod et al41 determined that the unemployment-mortality association was much stronger in the USA (low level of social protection) than in Germany (high level of social protection).

    There is considerable evidence that there is a fundamental link between health and socioeconomic indicators such as educational qualifications, job status and income. As a result, health inequalities often go hand in hand with other socioeconomic inequalities.14 For example, unemployed persons have a higher mortality rate and more often experience diseases with functional limitations.8 ,42 Inclusion of unemployed persons in the workforce through re-employment programmes is therefore an important strategy to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. The effect sizes found in this systematic review are comparable to those found in many preventive interventions on improvement of unhealthy behaviour. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 18 studies on the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes showed an effect for self-perceived health with an effect size of 0.23 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.33).43 Fortunately, the awareness about the importance of employment for health is certainly increasing, as reflected in the rapidly growing amount of research on this topic and by the policies developed in different countries to integrate health services with employment services. However, one of the challenges is to improve the health-related and work-related knowledge of the primary care workforce, as they are the gatekeepers to specialist medical care and key actors in preventing labour market exclusion.44

    Shortcomings in the risk of bias assessment were found with regard to blinding of participants, personnel and the outcome assessment and indistinctness whether cointerventions were avoided or not. Knowledge of group assignment by participants and outcome assessors can affect the subjective health-related outcomes reported in most studies. Participants who know that they are allocated to the intervention group may be more inclined to report a positive effect. Besides, if personnel are not blinded, their attitudes in favour of or against the intervention can be transferred to the participant.20 ,45 Furthermore, the lack of information on cointerventions makes it difficult to establish whether the effects reported are the result of the evaluated intervention or not.

    This systematic review shows indications that re-employment programmes based on the place-than-train model have some effect on the quality of life of participants, but the effect size is modest. The current systematic review highlights two important challenges for the future. First, policymakers and healthcare providers must be aware that paid employment can be seen as a therapeutic intervention and can contribute to reducing socioeconomic health inequalities. That is why the knowledge of professionals on this topic needs to be improved. Second, research should focus on establishing the effectiveness of re-employment programmes based on the place-and-train model with regard to health by conducting RCTs with a larger sample size, with health outcomes as their primary outcome measure, and with longer follow-up periods.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Roelfs DJ,
      2. Shor E,
      3. Davidson KW, et al
      . Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:840–54. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Meneton P,
      2. Kesse-Guyot E,
      3. Mejean C, et al
      . Unemployment is associated with high cardiovascular event rate and increased all-cause mortality in middle-aged socially privileged individuals. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2015;88:707–16. doi:10.1007/s00420-014-0997-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Bartley M,
      2. Sacker A,
      3. Clarke P
      . Employment status, employment conditions, and limiting illness: prospective evidence from the British household panel survey 1991–2001. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:501–6. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.009878
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Thomas C,
      2. Benzeval M,
      3. Stansfeld SA
      . Employment transitions and mental health: an analysis from the British household panel survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:243–9. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.019778
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Marwaha S,
      2. Johnson S
      . Schizophrenia and employment—a review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004;39:337–49. doi:10.1007/s00127-004-0762-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Arcaya M,
      2. Glymour MM,
      3. Christakis NA, et al
      . Individual and spousal unemployment as predictors of smoking and drinking behavior. Soc Sci Med 2014;110:89–95. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.034
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Hammarstrom A,
      2. Janlert U
      . Unemployment—an important predictor for future smoking: a 14-year follow-up study of school leavers. Scand J Public Health 2003;31:229–32. doi:10.1080/14034940210164902
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Janlert U
      . Unemployment as a disease and diseases of the unemployed. Scand J Work Environ Health 1997;23(Suppl 3):79–83.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Schuring M,
      2. Mackenbach J,
      3. Voorham T, et al
      . The effect of re-employment on perceived health. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65:639–44. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.103838
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Murphy GC,
      2. Athanasou JA
      . The effect of unemployment on mental health. J Occup Organ Psych 1999;72:83–99. doi:10.1348/096317999166518
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    11. ↵
      1. McKee-Ryan F,
      2. Song Z,
      3. Wanberg CR, et al
      . Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol 2005;90:53–76. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. van der Noordt M,
      2. Ijzelenberg H,
      3. Droomers M, et al
      . Health effects of employment: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occup Environ Med 2014;71:730–6. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101891
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Luciano A,
      2. Bond GR,
      3. Drake RE
      . Does employment alter the course and outcome of schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses? A systematic review of longitudinal research. Schizophr Res 2014;159:312–21. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2014.09.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Black C
      . Working fo a healthier tomorrow. London: TSO (The Stationery Office), 2008.
    15. ↵
      1. Crowther RE,
      2. Marshall M,
      3. Bond GR, et al
      . Helping people with severe mental illness to obtain work: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322:204–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7280.204
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Marshall T,
      2. Goldberg RW,
      3. Braude L, et al
      . Supported employment: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2014;65:16–23. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300262
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Drake RE,
      2. McHugo GJ,
      3. Bebout RR, et al
      . A randomized clinical trial of supported employment for inner-city patients with severe mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:627–33. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.56.7.627
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Howard LM,
      2. Heslin M,
      3. Leese M, et al
      . Supported employment: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2010;196:404–11. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.061465
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Green S
      . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 updated March 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
    21. ↵
      1. Higgins JP,
      2. Thompson SG,
      3. Deeks JJ, et al
      . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Becker DR,
      2. Drake RE
      . Individual Placement and Support: a community mental health center approach to vocational rehabilitation. Community Ment Health J 1994;30:193–206; discussion 7–12. doi:10.1007/BF02188630
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Kashner TM,
      2. Rosenheck R,
      3. Campinell AB, et al
      . Impact of work therapy on health status among homeless, substance-dependent veterans: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;59:938–44. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.938
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Gold PB,
      2. Meisler N,
      3. Santos AB, et al
      . Randomized trial of supported employment integrated with assertive community treatment for rural adults with severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull 2006;32:378–95. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbi056
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Tsang HW,
      2. Fung KM,
      3. Leung AY, et al
      . Three year follow-up study of an integrated supported employment for individuals with severe mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2010;44:49–58. doi:10.3109/00048670903393613
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Latimer EA,
      2. Lecomte T,
      3. Becker DR, et al
      . Generalisability of the individual placement and support model of supported employment: results of a Canadian randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006;189:65–73. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.012641
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Burns T,
      2. Catty J,
      3. White S, et al
      . The impact of supported employment and working on clinical and social functioning: results of an international study of individual placement and support. Schizophr Bull 2009;35:949–58. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn024
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Drake RE,
      2. McHugo GJ,
      3. Becker DR, et al
      . The New Hampshire study of supported employment for people with severe mental illness. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996;64:391–9. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.2.391
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Heslin M,
      2. Howard L,
      3. Leese M, et al
      . Randomized controlled trial of supported employment in England: 2 year follow-up of the Supported Work and Needs (SWAN) study. World Psychiatry 2011;10:132–7. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00035.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Hoffmann H,
      2. Jackel D,
      3. Glauser S, et al
      . A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of supported employment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2012;125:157–67. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01780.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Mueser KT,
      2. Essock SM,
      3. Haines M, et al
      . Posttraumatic stress disorder, supported employment, and outcomes in people with severe mental illness. CNS Spectr 2004;9:913–25.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Areberg C,
      2. Bejerholm U
      . The effect of IPS on participants’ engagement, quality of life, empowerment, and motivation: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Occup Ther 2013;20:420–8. doi:10.3109/11038128.2013.765911
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Kin Wong K,
      2. Chiu R,
      3. Tang B, et al
      . A randomized controlled trial of a supported employment program for persons with long-term mental illness in Hong Kong. Psychiatr Serv 2008;59:84–90. doi:10.1176/ps.2008.59.1.84
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Kukla M,
      2. Bond GR
      . A randomized controlled trial of evidence-based supported employment: nonvocational outcomes. J Vocational Rehabil 2013;38:91–8.
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Michon H,
      2. van Busschbach JT,
      3. Stant AD, et al
      . Effectiveness of individual placement and support for people with severe mental illness in The Netherlands: a 30-month randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2014;37:129–36. doi:10.1037/prj0000061
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Hoffmann H,
      2. Jackel D,
      3. Glauser S, et al
      . Long-term effectiveness of supported employment: 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 2014;171:1183–90. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13070857
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Mueser KT,
      2. Becker DR,
      3. Torrey WC, et al
      . Work and nonvocational domains of functioning in persons with severe mental illness: a longitudinal analysis. J Nerv Ment Dis 1997;185:419–26. doi:10.1097/00005053-199707000-00001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Bond GR,
      2. Resnick SG,
      3. Drake RE, et al
      . Does competitive employment improve nonvocational outcomes for people with severe mental illness? J Consult Clin Psychol 2001;69:489–501. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.489
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Huber M,
      2. Knottnerus JA,
      3. Green L, et al
      . How should we define health? BMJ 2011;343:d4163. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Martikainen PT,
      2. Valkonen T
      . Excess mortality of unemployed men and women during a period of rapidly increasing unemployment. Lancet 1996;348:909–12. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03291-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. McLeod CB,
      2. Lavis JN,
      3. MacNab YC, et al
      . Unemployment and mortality: a comparative study of Germany and the United States. Am J Public Health 2012;102:1542–50. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300475
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Morris JK,
      2. Cook DG,
      3. Shaper AG
      . Loss of employment and mortality. BMJ 1994;308:1135–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6937.1135
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Rongen A,
      2. Robroek SJ,
      3. van Lenthe FJ, et al
      . Workplace health promotion: a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 2013;44:406–15. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.12.007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      OECD. Mental health and work: United Kingdom, mental health and work. OECD Publishing, 2014.
    45. ↵
      1. Schulz KF,
      2. Grimes DA
      . Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet 2002;359:696–700. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RMvR executed the systematic review, conducted the literature search, selected relevant articles for inclusion, performed the data extraction, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. He is the guarantor. BEC helped conduct the literature search, selected relevant articles for inclusion and contributed to the content of the manuscript. MS selected relevant articles for inclusion and contributed to the content of the manuscript. AB initiated the study and contributed to the content of the article. All four authors made a substantial contribution to the information and material submitted and have read and approved the final version.

    • Funding This work was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, grant 200210005).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.