To explore the duration of support, reach, effectiveness and equity in access to and outcome of individual placement and support (IPS) in routine clinical practice. A retrospective analysis of routine cross-sectional administrative data was performed for people using the IPS service (N = 539).

A total of 46.2% gained or retained employment, or were supported in education. The median time to gaining employment was 132 days (4.3 months). Further, 84.7% did not require time-unlimited in-work support, and received in-work support for a median of 146 days (4.8 months). There was a significant overrepresentation of people from Black and minority ethnic communities accessing IPS, but no significant differences in outcomes by diagnosis, ethnicity, age or gender.

Most people using IPS services do not appear to need time-unlimited in-work support. Community teams with integrated IPS employment specialists can be optimistic when addressing people's recovery goals of gaining and retaining employment.

Services to support adults with acquired brain injury (ABI) and return to work goals are varied. In Queensland, Australia, return to work goals may be addressed through private or publicly funded rehabilitation services or through publicly funded employment programs. No set frameworks or processes are in place to guide clinicians in providing vocational rehabilitation to adults with ABI, and the extent to which services address clients’ vocational goals and/or provide vocational rehabilitation is unknown.

This qualitative study investigated the clinical practice and experiences of allied health rehabilitation clinicians (n = 34) to identify current practice in providing vocational rehabilitation to adults with ABI, including pathways and services; models, frameworks and tools; and recommendations for ideal services. Focus groups and online surveys were conducted, with data analysed via content analysis.

ABI vocational rehabilitation was inconsistently delivered within and across services in Queensland, with differences in access to services, aspects of vocational rehabilitation provided and timeframes for rehabilitation. Five key themes were identified regarding ABI vocational rehabilitation and service delivery in Queensland: Factors influencing ABI and return to work; Service provision; ABI vocational rehabilitation processes (including assessment tools and interventions); Service gaps; and Ideal ABI vocational rehabilitation services.

These findings can inform clinical practice and development, and current and future service delivery models for ABI vocational rehabilitation.

To explore how vocational rehabilitation (VR) is currently delivered for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) across multiple stakeholder groups and identify areas for improvement in service delivery using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Seven focus groups were conducted with rehabilitation clinicians; outreach providers, insurers/regulators, VR providers and disability employment service providers (n = 44) experienced in VR of individuals with ABI. All groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was guided by the CFIR constructs.

All stakeholder groups believed they offered quality VR interventions given available resources and legislation, but many clients fell through the ‘cracks’. Themes that were identified included: a) number and complexity of systems supporting VR; b) fractured communication across systems, c) lack of knowledge by both stakeholders and clients in navigating systems, d) lack of expertise in supporting the vocational needs of clients with ABI and e) perceived limited awareness of ABI by employers.

Stakeholders and clients need support to navigate Australia’s complex VR pathways. Limited specialist ABI clinicians, VR providers and disability employment services were identified as barriers for effective VR. Domains of the CFIR were appropriate for organising and understanding how VR is delivered.

Job loss is common in multiple sclerosis (MS) and frequently associated with depression, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction. Identifying these modifiable risk factors and providing “at-risk” women with a neuropsychologically-based intervention may improve employment outcomes. Our study seeks to investigate the utility of a neuropsychologically-based intervention with varying levels of treatment and follow-up, and evaluate treatment and employment outcomes among groups.

In this longitudinal, quasi-randomized controlled trial, employed women with MS meeting criteria on screening measures were considered “at-risk” for job instability and randomized to one of two neuropsychological testing interventions (standard-care group received testing and phone feedback of results and recommendations; experimental group received testing and in-person feedback with subsequent care-coordinator calls from a nurse to help coordinate recommendation completion). Participants who did not meet criteria were considered “low-risk” and only followed over time.

56 women in the treatment groups (standard-care = 23; experimental = 33) and 63 women in the follow-only group were analyzed at 1 year. Rates of decreased employment were similar between standard-care (17.4%) and experimental (21.2%) groups (OR = .782, 95% CI .200–3.057). However, the experimental group completed significantly more treatment recommendations, t(53) = −3.237, p = .002. Rates of decreased employment were also similar between the “low-risk” (17.5%) and “at-risk” groups (19.6%), (OR = .721, 95% CI .285–1.826).

Employment outcomes were similar at 1 year between treatment groups receiving differing levels of a neuropsychologically-based intervention, however treatment adherence significantly improved in the experimental group. Treatment groups also had similar employment outcomes as compared to a “low-risk,” no intervention group, suggesting that engaging in either neuropsychological intervention may have impacted job stability.

Depression and anxiety are very frequent and associated with high societal costs, much suffering and functional impairment. Employment is essential and pivotal recovery after sick-leave. In many countries, health care interventions are delivered separately from vocational rehabilitation services. This fragmented placement of interventions often implies lack of coordination, creating despair among sick-listed persons.

The aim of this trial was to investigate an integrated mental health care and vocational rehabilitation intervention to improve and hasten the return-to-work process among people sick-listed with anxiety or depression.

In this RCT, participants were randomly allocated to A) integrated interventions (INT), B) improved mental health care (MHC) or B) service as usual (SAU). Primary outcome was time to return-to-work during 12-month. Secondary outcomes were time to return-to-work at 6-month follow-up; levels of anxiety, depression, stress symptoms and social and occupational functioning at 6-month follow-up; and return-to-work measured as proportion in work at 12-month follow-up.

631 individuals randomized. INT showed higher proportion in work compared with both SAU and MHC at the 12-month follow-up. We found no differences regarding return-to-work time at either the 6- or 12-month follow-up. No differences in symptoms between SAU, MCH or INT were detected, but MHC and INT showed lower scores on Cohen’s perceived stress scale compared with SAU at 12-month follow-up.

Although INT did not hasten return-to-work, it yielded higher proportion in work compared with MHC and SAU.

No significant relationships.

Stress-related disorders are common and associated withsuffering and a large sociatal burden. While treatment appears to be able to reduce symptoms, evidence of interventions to improve work outcomes is inconsistent. Lack of integration different service domains has been suspected to be a barrier in return-to-work (RTW) processes.

We aimed to test the effectiveness of intergrating vocational rehabilitation and mental health care.

We randomized participants on sick leave to I) service as usual (SAU), I) improved mental health care (MHC) or III) integrated interventions (INT). Primary outcome was RTW-rates measured at 12 months. Secondary outcome were proportion in work at 12 months, RTW-rates measured at 6 months, and symptom levels at 6 months.

We randomized 666 participants. Regarding primary outcome, the SAU group was superior to both MHC and INT. Furthermore, SAU was also superior to INT and MHC on almost all other work-related outcomes. INT and MHC did not show differences on any work-related outcome. On several symptom scales, MHC was observed with lower scores than SAU, whilst INT did not differ from the two other groups.

Both the integrated intervention (INT) and the (non-integrated) mental health care (MHC) intervention lowered return-to-work rates compared with service as usual (SAU), and thereby yielded worse outcomes. However, the MHC group intervention showed a tendency towards having lower symptom levels compared with those in the SAU group; accordingly, the SAU group is not unequivocally superior. INT and MHC showed no general differences.

No significant relationships.

We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients unemployed for more than 3 months with chronic pain using a range of methods in primary care in order to conduct a pilot trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) to improve quality of life outcomes for people with chronic pain.

This research was informed by people with chronic pain. We assessed the feasibility of identification and recruitment of unemployed patients; the training and support needs of employment support workers to integrate with pain services; acceptability of randomisation, retention through follow-up and appropriate outcome measures for a definitive trial. Participants randomised to IPS received integrated support from an employment support worker and a pain occupational therapist to prepare for, and take up, a work placement. Those randomised to Treatment as Usual (TAU) received a bespoke workbook, delivered at an appointment with a research nurse not trained in vocational rehabilitation.

Using a range of approaches, recruitment through primary care was difficult and resource-intensive (1028 approached to recruit 37 eligible participants). Supplementing recruitment through pain services, another 13 people were recruited (total n = 50). Randomisation to both arms was acceptable: 22 were allocated to IPS and 28 to TAU. Recruited participants were generally not ‘work ready’, particularly if recruited through pain services.

A definitive randomised controlled trial is not currently feasible for recruiting through primary care in the UK. Although a trial recruiting through pain services might be possible, participants could be unrepresentative in levels of disability and associated health complexities. Retention of participants over 12 months proved challenging, and methods for reducing attrition are required. The intervention has been manualised.

To assess the effectiveness of supported employment interventions for improving competitive employment in populations of people with conditions other than only severe mental illness.

Supported employment interventions have been extensively tested in severe mental illness populations. These approaches may be beneficial outside of these populations.

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PEDro, OTSeeker, and NIOSHTIC for trials including unemployed people with any condition and including severe mental illness if combined with other co-morbidities or other specific circumstances (e.g., homelessness). We excluded trials where inclusion was based on severe mental illness alone. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (RoB v2.0) and four reviewers extracted data. We assessed rates of competitive employment as compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation or waiting list/services as usual.

Ten randomised controlled trials (913 participants) were included. Supported employment was more effective than control interventions for improving competitive employment in seven trials: in people with affective disorders [risk ratio (RR) 10.61 (1.49, 75.38)]; mental disorders and justice involvement [RR 4.44 (1.36,14.46)]; veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [RR 2.73 (1.64, 4.54)]; formerly incarcerated veterans [RR 2.17 (1.09, 4.33)]; people receiving methadone treatment [RR 11.5 (1.62, 81.8)]; veterans with spinal cord injury at 12 months [RR 2.46 (1.16, 5.22)] and at 24 months [RR 2.81 (1.98, 7.37)]; and young people not in employment, education, or training [RR 5.90 (1.91–18.19)]. Three trials did not show significant benefits from supported employment: populations of workers with musculoskeletal injuries [RR 1.38 (1.00, 1.89)]; substance abuse [RR 1.85 (0.65, 5.41)]; and formerly homeless people with mental illness [RR 1.55 (0.76, 3.15)]. Supported employment interventions may be beneficial to people from more diverse populations than those with severe mental illness alone. Defining competitive employment and increasing (and standardising) measurement of non-vocational outcomes may help to improve research in this area.

People suffering from schizophrenia cannot easily access employment in European countries. Different types of vocational programs coexist in France: supported employment, sheltered employment (ShE), and hybrid vocational programs. It is now acknowledged that the frequent cognitive impairments constitute a major obstacle to employment for people with schizophrenia. However, cognitive remediation (CR) is an evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment for these neurocognitive deficits.

RemedRehab was a multicentric randomized comparative open trial in parallel groups conducted in eight centers in France between 2013 and 2018. Participants were recruited into ShE firms before their insertion in employment (preparation phase). They were randomly assigned to cognitive training Cognitive Remediation for Schizophrenia (RECOS) or Treatment As Usual (TAU). The aim of the study was to compare with the benefits of the RECOS program on access to employment and work attendance for people with schizophrenia, measured by the ratio: number of hours worked on number of hours stipulated in the contract.

Seventy-nine patients were included in the study between October 2018 and September 2019. Fifty-three patients completed the study. Hours worked / planned hours equal to 1 or greater than 1 were significantly higher in the RECOS group than in the TAU group.

Participants benefited from a RECOS individualized CR program allows a better rate of work attendance in ShE, compared to the ones benefited from TAU. Traditional vocational rehabilitation enhanced with individualized CR in a population of patients with schizophrenia is efficient on work attendance during the first months of work integration.

Following acquired brain injury, the goal of return to work is common. While return to work is supported through different rehabilitation models and services, access to vocational rehabilitation varies within and between countries, and global rates of employment post-injury remain low. The literature identifies outcomes from vocational programs and experiences with return to work, yet little is known about individuals’ perceptions and experiences regarding rehabilitation to support their vocational goals and experiences in attempting to return to work.

This qualitative study investigated the experiences of community-living adults with acquired brain injury (n = 8; mean age 45 years; mean time post-injury of 5.5 years) regarding their vocational rehabilitation and return to work. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted, with data analyzed via thematic analysis.

Participants identified negative and positive experiences with vocational rehabilitation and return to work. Five overarching themes were identified: addressing vocational rehabilitation in rehabilitation; facilitators of recovery and return to work; the importance and experience of working again; acquired brain injury and identity; and services, systems and policies. Participants also identified five key areas for early vocational rehabilitation services: education; service provision; employer liaison; workplace supports; and peer mentors. Study findings inform current and future practice and service delivery, at a clinical, service and system level.