0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Improving Employment Outcomes for Persons With Severe Mental Illnesses FREE

Anthony F. Lehman, MD, MSPH; Richard Goldberg, PhD; Lisa B. Dixon, MD, MPH; Scot McNary, PhD; Leticia Postrado, PhD; Ann Hackman, MD; Karen McDonnell, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland (Drs Lehman, Goldberg, Dixon, McNary, Postrado, and Hackman); the Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Integrated Service Network5 (Drs Lehman, Goldberg, and Dixon); and The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health (Dr McDonnell), Baltimore, Md.


Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(2):165-172. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.2.165.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Unemployment remains a major consequence of schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses. This study assesses the effectiveness of the Individual Placement and Support model of supportive employment relative to usual psychosocial rehabilitation services for improving employment among inner-city patients with these disorders.

Methods  Two hundred nineteen outpatients with severe mental illnesses, 75% with chronic psychoses, from an inner-city catchment area were randomly assigned to either the Individual Placement and Support program or a comparison psychosocial rehabilitation program. Participants completed a battery of assessments at study enrollment and every 6 months for 2 years. Employment data, including details about each job, were collected weekly.

Results  Individual Placement and Support program participants were more likely than the comparison patients to work (42% vs 11%; P<.001; odds ratio, 5.58) and to be employed competitively (27% vs 7%; P<.001; odds ratio, 5.58). Employment effects were associated with significant differences in cumulative hours worked (t211 = −5.0, P = .00000003) and wages earned (t = −5.5, P= .00000003). Among those who achieved employment, however, there were no group differences in time to first job or in number or length of jobs held. Also, both groups experienced difficulties with job retention.

Conclusions  As hypothesized, the Individual Placement and Support program was more effective than the psychosocial rehabilitation program in helping patients achieve employment goals. Achieving job retention remains a challenge with both interventions.

Figures in this Article

WORK represents an important goal for many people with severe mental illnesses. Gainful employment addresses practical needs by improving economic independence and therapeutic needs by enhancing self-esteem and overall functioning.14 Several recent forces have again raised employment as an outcome priority. The advent of new pharmacologic agents has raised hopes that overall outcomes may improve and that patients may be better able to take advantage of rehabilitation efforts.5 Consumer and family advocacy has created an imperative to develop treatments that enhance functional status and quality of life.68 The government has responded with efforts to eliminate disincentives to work among persons with disabilities, such as the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (1999), enabling disabled individuals to join the workforce without the fear of losing their Medicaid coverage.9

Despite these advances, it seems that most persons with severe mental illnesses do not have vocational services included as part of their treatment plans.10,11 A recent National Alliance for the Mentally Ill report12 concluded that efforts of the Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation System to serve this population have been inadequate. However, promising recent randomized controlled trials have reported greatly improved vocational and psychosocial outcomes for supported employment models. These models emphasize a rapid search in competitive jobs and supports from employment specialists within a continuous mental health treatment team.1317 The Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model studied herein emphasizes competitive employment in integrated work settings with follow-along support, bypassing the traditional stepwise approaches to vocational rehabilitation.17,18 Findings from studies11,13,1921 of IPS programs are encouraging in showing increased rates of competitive employment.

This study evaluates the IPS model among a population of high-risk inner-city patients with severe mental illnesses, extending previously published work by Drake and colleagues,13 who compared the IPS model with an enhanced vocational rehabilitation program among a similar population. In our study, men and women with severe mental illnesses were randomly assigned to either an IPS program or a comparison psychosocial rehabilitation program, the predominant mode of rehabilitation services offered in Maryland and many other states. This comparison program includes, but does not emphasize, enhanced vocational services. The study tests the hypothesis that patients assigned to the IPS program will be more likely to work, to be competitively employed, and to accumulate more hours worked and more wages earned than the comparison patients.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample includes patients with severe mental illnesses receiving outpatient psychiatric care from 3 continuous-care teams within a university-run community mental health agency serving inner-city Baltimore, Md. All participants were recruited between March 1, 1996, and April 30, 1998. Standard written informed consent was obtained from participants at baseline and reviewed at each follow-up interview. Participants received $20 for the baseline interviews,$10 for each of the next 2 follow-up interviews, and $15 each for the 18- and final 24-month interviews.

All participants met the criteria for severe mental illness based on diagnosis, duration of illness, and level of disability using the following hierarchical criteria.22,23 Patients were automatically eligible if they were receiving Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Income, or 100% Veterans Affairs disability benefits because of a mental disorder (other than substance use only) or if they had a diagnosis in the schizophrenia spectrum using DSM-IV criteria. Those not meeting this criterion were eligible if they had another Axis I mental disorder (other psychotic, major affective, or anxiety disorder) or an extensive prior hospitalization history (≥2 prior psychiatric hospitalizations of >21 days within the prior 3 years, a total of at least 42 days before a current hospitalization; or 90 total days in a psychiatric hospital or nursing home during the past 3 years). Finally, people not meeting either of the first2 criteria were eligible if they had a history of mental disorder lasting for at least the past year, during which they were unable to spend at least75% of their time in some gainful activity owing to the mental disorder. Enrollment was restricted to those who were unemployed for at least 3 months before joining the study.

The target sample based on power analysis was 220 patients, taking into account anticipated follow-up attrition. To avoid selection bias in approaching patients, the patient rosters of the treatment teams were placed in randomized order, with screening for recruitment beginning at the top of the random-order list. The medical records of 540 patients served by these teams were screened. Of these patients, 103 were subsequently determined to be ineligible. An additional68 patients were excluded because they were too disabled to provide informed consent or to participate safely in the study. Another 55 eligible patients could not be located during the recruitment period. Hence, a total of 314 of those screened from the random-order list represented the final eligible pool approached for participation. Of these 314 patients, 219 (70%) enrolled and 95 (30%) refused to enroll. While there were no sex or diagnostic differences between those who enrolled and those who refused to enroll, white patients were more likely than African American patients and other minorities to refuse(36% vs 25%; χ21 = 4.07; P= .04). χ2 And t test analyses indicated no significant differences in the samples assigned to the 2 conditions.

INTERVENTIONS

Using pre-prepared sealed envelopes, participants were randomly assigned to either (1) the IPS program or (2) the comparison psychosocial rehabilitation program. Regardless of condition assignment, all participants received their psychiatric clinical services within a single treatment system, thus allowing for assessment of the 2 interventions under comparable clinical treatment conditions. Most participants were part of a continuous treatment team that provided mobile, multidisciplinary, comprehensive, 24-hour continuous (inpatient/outpatient) care with a 1-stop approach to service delivery. Remaining participants were recruited from the general outpatient clinic serving the same catchment area.

Experimental Condition

The IPS model involves integrating an employment specialist into the clinical treatment team. This model focuses on a rapid job search with continued follow-along support. The IPS program seeks employment opportunities that are consistent with participants' preferences, skills, and abilities. Ongoing supervision and consultation were provided by the developers of the IPS program17 and by local experts in the use of supported employment models. Fidelity ratings, completed by the IPS program developer who served as a consultant to our project, were made twice yearly using the IPS Fidelity Scale.24 The program received high ratings of implementation fidelity across all review periods (69-71 of a possible75 points).

Comparison Condition

The comparison psychosocial rehabilitation program provided an array of services, including evaluation and skills training, socialization, access to entitlements, transportation, housing supports, counseling, and education. Vocational services included in-house evaluation and training for individuals who staff believed were not yet fully prepared for competitive employment. Training focused on improving specific work readiness skills, such as work endurance, appropriate social interaction in the workplace, and acceptance of supervision. In-house sheltered work and factory enclave projects were also available. For those ready for competitive employment, the psychosocial program either provided in-house assistance in securing employment or referred participants to city-based rehabilitation or vocational service programs.

MEASURES

Assessments completed at study enrollment included the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV25 and a structured interview assessing quality of life, self-esteem, work motivation, medication attitudes, general health, and social network. All instruments except the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV were readministered at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up points. Logs of all vocational and nonvocational services were also summarized for all participants.

Employment data, including details about each job (start date, end data, salary, hours worked, benefits, and level of mainstream integration), were collected weekly using a standardized employment report form completed by case managers or vocational specialists. These data were used to define the vocational outcomes for this study, including percentage of participants working at all, percentage working in competitive jobs, hours worked, and wages earned. Competitive employment was defined as a job in which (a) the worker earned at least minimum wage, (b)the worker had no contact with disabled workers and at least some contact with nondisabled workers (alternatively, no contact with any other employees, ie, works alone), and (c) the job had not been set aside for a disabled person.26 Vocational outcomes were further conceptualized in 2 ways. Dichotomous indicators of whether a participant worked (or worked competitively) at any time during the study were used as cumulative measures of job starts. Longitudinal measures were created to monitor change over time, specifically, whether a participant was working each month of participation and the average number of hours worked and the wages earned.

DATA ANALYSES

The cumulative measures of employment, total hours worked, and wages earned during the study period were analyzed with fixed-effect procedures. Logistic regression was used to test whether the participant worked during the study, and an analysis of variance was used to test log hours worked and log wages earned. The probability of working over time by treatment group was analyzed as a repeated binary measure using generalized estimating equations27 to adjust SEs. This secured an estimate of the "population-averaged" effect28 of working over time for the 2 treatment groups. Hours worked and wages earned were log transformed to improve the fit of the models to the data and were analyzed with fixed-effect analyses of variance with correlated errors (SAS PROC MIXED; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). For binary and continuous repeated measures, correlated errors were modeled with a 1-lag autoregressive correlation structure (ar[1]). A Bonferroni correction was applied to control the type I error rate among the treatment contrasts in cumulative and longitudinal models. The α value was set at .05/8= .006 for the 8 treatment group contrasts (2 groups × 4 employment outcomes). Job characteristics were analyzed using 2-sample nonparametric tests.

INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION

The patterns of vocational and clinical services for the 2 intervention groups were determined as a manipulation check of program fidelity. In this effectiveness trial, patients were offered, but not required to accept, services. While 93% of the IPS program group received vocational services (including vocational assessments, job development assistance, vocational skills training, and vocational counseling/support), only 33% of those enrolled in the comparison program received such services. Clinical services, on the other hand, were received in equal (and high) numbers across the 2 groups (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Receipt of Vocational and Clinical Services: Differences in the Proportion of Each Treatment Group Receiving a Service*
FOLLOW-UP RATES AND ATTRITION

The completion rates for assessments across the 2-year period for the2 treatment conditions were similar: 6 months, IPS program vs comparison program,92% vs 89%; 12 months, IPS program vs comparison program, 87% vs 84%; 18 months, IPS program vs comparison program, 81% vs 75%; and 24 months, IPS program vs comparison program, 74% vs 60%. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics (sex: χ2 = 1.76, P = .19; race: χ2 = .07, P= .79; education: χ2 = .05, P = .82; age: t = 1.24, P = .22), diagnosis (χ2 = 3.18, P = .07), current substance abuse status (χ2 = 1.42, P= .23), or treatment condition (χ2 = 2.49, P = .11) between those who did (n = 151) and those who did not (n =68) complete the 24-month assessments.

OVERALL EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

The proportion of patients who worked at all during any given month, the proportion who worked competitively, the average hours worked per month, and the average wages earned per month were all greater for the patients in the IPS program than for those in the comparison program during the entire intervention period (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4, respectively). Participants in the IPS program (47 [42%] of 113) were more likely than participants in the comparison program (12 [11%] of 106) to work at all during the study (χ21 = 25.5; P<.001; odds ratio, 5.58; 95% confidence interval, 2.75-11.3). Patients in the IPS program (31 [27%] of 113) were also more likely than the comparison patients (7 [7%] of 106) to be competitively employed (χ21 = 15.1; P<.001). In multivariate analyses, the odds of working at all and working competitively, and the average hours worked and wages earned, were greater for the patients in the IPS program(Table 2). Employment outcomes were worse among patients with psychotic diagnoses and those with active substance use disorders (Table 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mean proportion of participants working at all over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Mean proportion of participants working competitively over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Mean time worked per month over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Mean wages earned per month over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Cumulative and Longitudinal Work Outcomes by Treatment Group*

Analyses of the longitudinal patterns of employment outcomes (Table 2) clarify how this treatment effect operated. In all 4 work outcomes, the longitudinal models showed significant main effects for treatment group during the entire study, favoring the IPS program. Time effects were similar for both groups across all 4 outcomes; a rapid increase in job starts (significant linear effect) was followed by a leveling-off period in the last 12 months of a participant's study membership. This latter effect is indicated by the significant (time)2 quadratic effect.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS

The 47 IPS program patients who achieved employment held 94 jobs during the 2-year follow-up period, including 50 competitive jobs. In contrast, the12 comparison group patients who achieved employment held 22 jobs during the same period, including 12 that were competitive. For those patients who obtained at least some employment during the intervention period, there were no treatment group differences in the number of jobs per person, the length of time jobs were held, hourly wages earned, hours worked, the length of time participants held those jobs, or time to first job (Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Job Characteristics by Treatment Condition*

As hypothesized, the patients in the IPS program were more likely than the comparison patients to achieve employment and to work competitively during the intervention period. As a result, in aggregate, the patients in the IPS program worked more hours and earned more wages (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 and Table 2). Subjects in the IPS program moved more quickly into employment (Figure 1 and Figure 2), consistent with the philosophy of the IPS program's place-and-train approach.

Nearly half (42%) of the patients in the IPS program achieved employment, compared with only 11% of the comparison patients. This rate of employment among the patients in the IPS program approaches that reported by Drake and colleagues13 (61%) in their study of the IPS program in inner-city Washington, DC. The rates of employment among these2 inner-city IPS program samples are substantially lower than that reported by Drake and colleagues19,20 in their New Hampshire studies (78%). An important variation between this study and the studies by Drake et al is the method for screening and enrolling patients. Drake et al used an "induction group" before consent, requiring that prospective patients attend 1 or 2 orientation sessions before consent to demonstrate their motivation to participate. We did not use an induction group to be as inclusive as possible. Hence, it is likely that our study enrolled some poorly motivated patients who would have been excluded from the studies by Drake et al, and this may have contributed to the lower overall employment rates in our sample.

Most striking, however, is the low rate of employment among our comparison patients. The employment rate for the comparison patients in the Washington study by Drake et al13 was 46%. The low rate of employment among our comparison group relative to the study by Drake et al likely reflects 2 influences, the severe levels of disability and disadvantage among the sample in this project and differences in the comparison conditions. Although our sample is similar in many ways to the inner-city sample (Table 4) studied by Drake et al, the rate of current substance abuse among our sample was considerably higher (40% vs24%). Multivariate analyses (Table 2)revealed that substance abuse was a negative predictor of employment outcomes. Furthermore, our sample had high levels of prior hospitalizations, averaging more than 11 in their lifetimes (Table 4).

Another factor possibly accounting for the low rate of employment in our comparison group is the nature of the comparison condition. Our comparison patients were offered a comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation program, only a component of which was a vocational service. The comparison patients often opted not to use these services (Table 1), and that program did not reach out assertively to engage patients. In contrast, the comparison group in the Washington study by Drake et al13 was provided traditional vocational rehabilitation services coordinated by an on-site vocational coordinator, who also provided outreach. We hypothesize that the low rate of employment in our comparison group is attributable to the high level of disability of the sample and to their failure to access vocational services. Regardless of the reasons, this low employment rate among the comparison patients underscores the effectiveness of the IPS program in helping such disabled and disadvantaged patients in this experiment.

Consistent with other studies8,11 of supportive employment, the types of jobs obtained by our patients in the IPS program were short-term, entry-level, part-time jobs (Table 3). More sobering is the finding that job retention for the patients in the IPS program was problematic. After initial success in obtaining work, the monthly employment rate for the patients in the IPS program leveled off in the range of 15% to 20% (Figure 1), despite the ongoing job supports. For those patients who achieved employment, there were no between-group differences in the length of employment, hourly wages, or hours worked (Table 3). Clearly, a better understanding of how to enhance job retention is needed. Job retention is a more challenging outcome than job initiation. We hypothesize that underlying illness processes, especially neurocognitive impairment and impaired interpersonal skills, may play a major role in job retention.9 We plan to test this hypothesis with further analysis of our results. If such factors play significant roles in job retention, then cognitive rehabilitation, social skills training, better pharmacotherapies, and additional environmental supports may all be needed to enhance vocational outcomes.

There are important limitations to this study. The generalizability of the results, particularly the rates of employment, is limited to similar highly disabled inner-city populations who face multiple disadvantages and limited local job markets. As with many research demonstration projects, the intervention period included the initial start-up of the IPS program and, hence, the results reflect the combined effects of an initial start-up period and a more mature program phase. Such start-up periods are characterized by initial staff turnover and efforts to achieve program fidelity, which affect program effectiveness. This may explain in part why some patients in the IPS program entered noncompetitive jobs, a finding contrary to the intent of the IPS program. In this effectiveness trial, many comparison patients opted out of the comparison intervention. While this is a real effect, it limits generalizing to other psychosocial rehabilitation programs that are more effective at engaging patients in services.

Nevertheless, this study adds to the growing literature on the effectiveness of the IPS program and related supported employment programs in promoting employment among persons with severe mental illnesses. It also highlights the challenges that remain in helping most patients achieve sustained employment even with assertive efforts to help them achieve work.

Accepted for publication September 11, 2001.

This study was supported by cooperative grant UD7-SM51824 from the Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md, as part of the Employment Intervention Demonstration Project; grant P50-MH4370 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville; and the Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Integrated Service Network 5, Baltimore, Md.

The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Center for Mental Health Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, or other Employment Intervention Demonstration Project collaborators.

Corresponding author and reprints: Anthony F. Lehman, MD, MSPH, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland, 701 W Pratt St, Suite 388, Baltimore, MD 21201 (e-mail: alehman@psych.umaryland.edu).

Lehman  A Vocational rehabilitation in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1995;21645- 656
Link to Article
Griffiths  RD Rehabilitation of chronic psychotic patients: an assessment of their psychological handicap, and evaluation of the effectiveness of rehabilitation, and observations of the factors which predict outcome. Psychol Med. 1974;4316- 325
Link to Article
Fabian  E Longitudinal outcomes in supported employment: a survival analysis. Rehabil Psychol. 1992;3723- 35
Link to Article
Polak  PWarner  R The economic life of seriously mentally ill people in the community. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47270- 274
Lehman  AF Quality of care in mental health: the case of schizophrenia. Health Aff (Millwood). 1999;1852- 65
Link to Article
Flynn  LM Commentary. Schizophr Bull. 1998;2430- 32
Becker  DRDrake  REFarabaugh  ABond  GR Job preferences of clients with severe psychiatric disorders participating in supported employment programs. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;471223- 1226
Rogers  ESWalsh  DMassotta  LDanley  K Massachusetts Survey of Client Preferences for Community Support Services (Final Report).  Boston, Mass Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation1991;
Cook  JRazzano  L Vocational rehabilitation for persons with schizophrenia: recent research and implications for practice. Schizophr Bull. 2000;2687- 103
Link to Article
Lehman  AFSteinwachs  DS Patterns of usual care for schizophrenia: initial results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Client Survey. Schizophr Bull. 1998;2411- 20
Link to Article
Bond  GRDrake  REMueser  KTBecker  DR An update on supported employment for people with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48335- 346
Noble  JHHonberg  RSHall  LLFlynn  LM A Legacy of Failure: The Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation System to Serve People With Severe Mental Illness.  Arlington, Va National Alliance for the Mentally Ill1997;
Drake  REMcHugo  GJBebout  RRBecker  DRHarris  MBond  GRQuimby  E A randomized clinical trial of supported employment for inner-city patients with severe mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56627- 633
Link to Article
Lysaker  PHFrance  CM Psychotherapy as an element in supported employment for persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatry. 1999;62209- 221
Holzner  BKemmler  GMeise  U The impact of work-related rehabilitation on the quality of life of patients with schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33624- 631
Link to Article
Priebe  SWarner  RHubschmid  TEckle  I Employment, attitudes toward work, and quality of life among people with schizophrenia in three countries. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24469- 477
Link to Article
Becker  DRDrake  RE A Working Life: The Individual Placement and Support(IPS) Program.  Concord New Hampshire–Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center1993;
Drake  REBecker  DR The Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47473- 475
Drake  REBecker  DRBiesanz  JCTorrey  WCMcHugo  GJWyzik  PF Rehabilitation day treatment vs supported employment, I: vocational outcomes. Community Ment Health J. 1994;30519- 532
Link to Article
Drake  REBecker  DRBiesanz  JCWyzik  PFTorrey  WC Day treatment versus supported employment for persons with severe mental illness: a replication study. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;471125- 1127
Drake  REBecker  DRClark  REMueser  KT Research on the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Psychiatr Q. 1999;70289- 301
Link to Article
Lehman  AFPostrado  LTRoth  DMcNary  SWGoldman  HH An evaluation of continuity of care, case management, and client outcomes in the Robert Wood Johnson Program on Chronic Mental Illness. Milbank Q. 1994;72105- 122
Link to Article
Lehman  AFDixon  LBKernan  EDeForge  BRPostrado  LT A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;541038- 1043
Link to Article
Bond  GRBecker  DRDrake  REVogler  KM A fidelity scale for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Rehabil Counseling J. 1997;40265- 284
First  MBSpitzer  RLGibbon  MWilliams  JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV: Patient Edition (SCID-P), Version 2.  New York New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of BiometricsResearch1995;
Carey  MA The Employment Intervention Demonstration Program. Community Support Network News. Fall1996;11
Hu  FBGoldberg  JHedeker  DFlay  BRPentz  MA Comparison of population-averaged and subject-specific approaches for analyzing repeated binary outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147694- 703
Link to Article
Liang  KZeger  SL Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;7313- 22
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Mean proportion of participants working at all over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Mean proportion of participants working competitively over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Mean time worked per month over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Mean wages earned per month over time by treatment group. IPS indicates Individual Placement and Support.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Receipt of Vocational and Clinical Services: Differences in the Proportion of Each Treatment Group Receiving a Service*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Cumulative and Longitudinal Work Outcomes by Treatment Group*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Job Characteristics by Treatment Condition*

References

Lehman  A Vocational rehabilitation in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1995;21645- 656
Link to Article
Griffiths  RD Rehabilitation of chronic psychotic patients: an assessment of their psychological handicap, and evaluation of the effectiveness of rehabilitation, and observations of the factors which predict outcome. Psychol Med. 1974;4316- 325
Link to Article
Fabian  E Longitudinal outcomes in supported employment: a survival analysis. Rehabil Psychol. 1992;3723- 35
Link to Article
Polak  PWarner  R The economic life of seriously mentally ill people in the community. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47270- 274
Lehman  AF Quality of care in mental health: the case of schizophrenia. Health Aff (Millwood). 1999;1852- 65
Link to Article
Flynn  LM Commentary. Schizophr Bull. 1998;2430- 32
Becker  DRDrake  REFarabaugh  ABond  GR Job preferences of clients with severe psychiatric disorders participating in supported employment programs. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;471223- 1226
Rogers  ESWalsh  DMassotta  LDanley  K Massachusetts Survey of Client Preferences for Community Support Services (Final Report).  Boston, Mass Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation1991;
Cook  JRazzano  L Vocational rehabilitation for persons with schizophrenia: recent research and implications for practice. Schizophr Bull. 2000;2687- 103
Link to Article
Lehman  AFSteinwachs  DS Patterns of usual care for schizophrenia: initial results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Client Survey. Schizophr Bull. 1998;2411- 20
Link to Article
Bond  GRDrake  REMueser  KTBecker  DR An update on supported employment for people with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 1997;48335- 346
Noble  JHHonberg  RSHall  LLFlynn  LM A Legacy of Failure: The Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation System to Serve People With Severe Mental Illness.  Arlington, Va National Alliance for the Mentally Ill1997;
Drake  REMcHugo  GJBebout  RRBecker  DRHarris  MBond  GRQuimby  E A randomized clinical trial of supported employment for inner-city patients with severe mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56627- 633
Link to Article
Lysaker  PHFrance  CM Psychotherapy as an element in supported employment for persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatry. 1999;62209- 221
Holzner  BKemmler  GMeise  U The impact of work-related rehabilitation on the quality of life of patients with schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998;33624- 631
Link to Article
Priebe  SWarner  RHubschmid  TEckle  I Employment, attitudes toward work, and quality of life among people with schizophrenia in three countries. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24469- 477
Link to Article
Becker  DRDrake  RE A Working Life: The Individual Placement and Support(IPS) Program.  Concord New Hampshire–Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center1993;
Drake  REBecker  DR The Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47473- 475
Drake  REBecker  DRBiesanz  JCTorrey  WCMcHugo  GJWyzik  PF Rehabilitation day treatment vs supported employment, I: vocational outcomes. Community Ment Health J. 1994;30519- 532
Link to Article
Drake  REBecker  DRBiesanz  JCWyzik  PFTorrey  WC Day treatment versus supported employment for persons with severe mental illness: a replication study. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;471125- 1127
Drake  REBecker  DRClark  REMueser  KT Research on the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Psychiatr Q. 1999;70289- 301
Link to Article
Lehman  AFPostrado  LTRoth  DMcNary  SWGoldman  HH An evaluation of continuity of care, case management, and client outcomes in the Robert Wood Johnson Program on Chronic Mental Illness. Milbank Q. 1994;72105- 122
Link to Article
Lehman  AFDixon  LBKernan  EDeForge  BRPostrado  LT A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997;541038- 1043
Link to Article
Bond  GRBecker  DRDrake  REVogler  KM A fidelity scale for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment. Rehabil Counseling J. 1997;40265- 284
First  MBSpitzer  RLGibbon  MWilliams  JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV: Patient Edition (SCID-P), Version 2.  New York New York State Psychiatric Institute, Division of BiometricsResearch1995;
Carey  MA The Employment Intervention Demonstration Program. Community Support Network News. Fall1996;11
Hu  FBGoldberg  JHedeker  DFlay  BRPentz  MA Comparison of population-averaged and subject-specific approaches for analyzing repeated binary outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147694- 703
Link to Article
Liang  KZeger  SL Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;7313- 22
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 159

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles