Table B
 
 

Table A Participants, setting and intervention of trials included in review
 

Study	Participants and setting	Intervention
Beard et al (1963)18	Female 40%; non-white 12%; schizophrenia 82% Setting: Fountain House, a psychiatric rehabilitation centre in New York	Clubhouse group received social activities and Awork-ordered day@ followed by transitional employment for 3-4 months and real job placement with outreach and supported accommodation. Control received community care from psychiatric services
Dincin and Witherdige (1982)19	Female 47%. Non-white % not known. Schizophrenia 86%.  Setting: Thresholds B a privately operated vocational rehabilitation centre in Chicago.	Prevocational training group received individual case work; work crews leading to transitional employment; problem solving and activity groups; linked residential facilities (where suitable); special education programme; and medication and relapse discussion group. Control received supportive treatment for six hours a week; referral to existing community services; discussion and peer support group; and fortnightly visits by consulting psychiatrist
Griffiths (1974)20	Female% not known. Non-white % not known; (all had psychotic illness).  Setting: Camberwell, London.	Prevocational training group received coordinated programme involving industrial workshops and an individual treatment and rehabilitation plan from a multidisciplinary team. Control group referred back to referring psychiatrists
Okpaku et al (1997)20	Female 41%; non-white 40%; schizophrenia 67% Setting: Four community mental health centres in Nashville, Tenessee	Prevocational training group received employment oriented case management from team of rehabilitation specialists (who offered employment needs assessment, regular review; and Aaggressively pursued social and rehabilitative services@). Control received standard case management services from local community mental health team
Wolkon et al (1971)20	Female 65%; non-white 43%; schizophrenia 78% Setting: Hill House, a non-residential, transitional, social rehabilitation centre for adults recently released form psychiatric hospital in Cleveland, Ohio	Prevocational training group received social group work; individual counselling; and transitional work projects. Control received treatment as usual from community psychiatric services
Chandler et al (1996)20	Female 43%; non-white 32%; schizophrenia 55.2% Setting: AThe Village,@ an integrated services agency at Long Beach, California	Supported group received assertive community treatment and an employment programme based at central site that offered immediate entry into employment opportunities (cafe, store, catering service, client bank, janitor service); and two staff to develop competitive jobs and provide job coaching. Control received usual community mental health services
Bond et al (1995)20	Female 49%; non-white 20%; schizophrenia 66% Setting: community mental health centre 30 miles from Indianapolis and four community mental health centres in Indianapolis	Supported group received immediate entry into supported employment with follow up care provided by employment specialists based in local community mental health teams. Prevocational training group received prevocational work readiness training and standard care from community mental health team
Drake et al (1996)20	Female 51.7%; non-white 5%; schizophrenia 46.9% Setting: Two New Hampshire cities with populations of 166 000 and 119 000	Supported group received individual placement and support programme from employment specialists attached directly to clinical teams (helped clients find jobs immediately, provided on-job training, supportive follow up). Prevocational training group received pre-employment preparation group (discussions of skills needed to get and keep jobs; practising these skills; exploration of work related values; interview skills meetings; discussion of job leads and interviews, on-job support, once employed)
Drake et al (1999)20	Female 61.2%; non-white 82.9%; schizophrenia 67.2% Setting: Community Connections in Washington ,DC.	Supported group received individual placement and support programme from three employment specialists attached to community psychiatric services; program involved rapid job search and follow-on support after securing work (counselling, transportation, intervening with employer). Prevocational training group received prevocational work experience, work adjustment training in sheltered workshop (primarily paid), and counselling
Gervey and Bedell (1994)20	Female 33%; non-white 83%; all had severe mental disorder  Setting: low-income families in a densely populated urban centre	Supported group received immediate placement in supported employment, with job coaching provided through professional job coaches or a family/peer support group. Prevocational training group received employment training in sheltered workshop with weekly individual, family, and peer group therapy
McFarlane et al (2000)20	Female 30%; non-white 7%; schizophrenia 65%  Setting: Two community mental health centres in New York state; one urban and one rural	Supported group received Assertive Community Treatment (family aided) and input from vocational specialists (working closely with the treating clinicians). The vocational rehabilitation specialists developed contacts with employers; assisted in finding work, and provided on or near job support. Prevocational training group received: standard community care and referral to state vocational rehabilitation service, often leading to placement in sheltered workshop

Table B Allocation concealment, follow up rates, and outcomes of trials included in review
 

Study	Size	Allocation category	Assessor	Duration (months)	Follow up (%)	No in competitive employment	No in any employment	No not participating	No admitted to hospital	Other clinical or social outcomes
Prevocational training v community control
Beard et al17	274 Clubhouse, 78 control	C, by day of application	Not independent	24	86	56 Clubhouse v 16 control	6 Months, 62 clubhouse v 18 control; 12 months 56 v 16, respectively	Not reported	12 Months, 58 clubhouse v 27 control	None
Dincin and Witheridge18	66 Prevocational training, 66 control	A, independent coordinator and sealed envelopes	Not independent	9	63	Not reported	9 Months: 26 prevocational training v 26 control	20 Prevocational training v 29 control	12 Months, 7 prevocational training v 19 control	None
Griffiths19	14 Prevocational training, 14 control	B, randomised but method unclear	Unclear if independent	18	100	1 Prevocational training v 3 control	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	No difference in self esteem
Okpaku et al20	73 Prevocational training, 79 control	B, randomised but method unclear	Independent	18	100	Not reported	18 Months: 37 prevocational training v 28 control	34 Prevocational training v 29 control	Not reported	None
Wolkon et al21	333 Prevocational training, 207 control	B, randomised but method unclear	Independent	30	92	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	108 Prevocational training v 73 control	None
Supported employment v community control
Chandler et al22	127 Supported employment, 129 control	B, randomised but method unclear	Independent	36	71	12 Months, 12 supported empolyment v 13 control; respectively, 24 months, 16 v 6; 36 months, 19 v 5	12 Months: 37 supported employment v 14 control	44 Supported employment v 60 control	50 Supported employment v 61 control	None
Supported employment v prevocational training
Bond et al23	43 Supported employment, 43 control	A, independent coordinator and sealed envelopes	Not independent	24	86	12 Months, 10 supported employment v 6 prevocational training; 24 months, 6 v 3, respectively	Not reported	6 Months, 18 supported employment v 19 prevocational training	Not reported	None
Drake et al24	74 Supported employment, 69 control	A, off site coordinator used computer generated random numbers	Independent	24	98	4 Months, 29 supported employment v 4 prevocational training; respectively, 6 months, 28 v 8; 9 months, 35 v 10; 12 months, 27 v 16; 15 months, 26 v 16; 18 months, 28 v 14	Not reported	12 Months, 5 supported employment v 18 prevocational training	Not reported	No difference in overall functioning, self esteem, or mental state
Drake et al25	76 Supported employment, 76 control	A, off site coordinator used computer generated random numbers	Independent	18	95	4 Months, 20 supported employment v 1 prevocational training; respectively, 6 months, 22 v 1; 9 months, 24 v 0; 12 months, 20 v 2; 15 months, 16 v 2; 18 months, 19 v 4	Not reported	12 Months, 30 supported employment v 33 prevocational training	Not reported	No difference in self esteem, quality of life, or mental state
Gervey and Bedell26	22 Supported employment, 12 control	C, lots drawn from a hat	Independent	12	100	12 Months, 16 supported employment v 2 prevocational training	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	None
McFarlane et al27	37 Supported employment, 32 control	A, off site coordinator used list of random numbers	Independent	18	84	4 Months, 8 supported employment v 4 prevocational training; respectively, 6 months, 7 v 2; 9 months, 12 v 3; 12 months, 14 v 2; 15 months, 12 v 4; 18 months, 10 v 2; 24 months, 6 v 1	6 Months: 20 supported employment v 18 prevocational training; 12 months, 23 supported employment v 14 prevocational training; 18 months, 21 supported employment v 15 prevocational training	18 Months, 3 supported employment v 7 prevocational training	Not reported	None