Supported employment adapted for people with affective disorders—A randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Background While effective vocational methods for gaining employment exist for people with schizophrenia and similar conditions, no evidence exists with regard to people with affective disorders. We aimed to study the effectiveness of a newly developed Individual Enabling and Support (IES) model adapted for the target group and compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation (TVR).Methods An assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel design was performed. Sixty-one participants received IES or TVR. The primary outcome was employment rate at 12-month follow-up. Secondary vocational outcomes, depression severity, and quality of life were also studied. Trial register number is ISRCTN93470551.Results IES was more effective for employment compared to TVR (42.4% vs. 4%; difference 38%, 95% CI 0.12-0.55). Significant group differences were present in secondary vocational outcomes (hours and weeks employed, time to employment), and depression severity. The IES-group had significantly lowering in depression scores and increased quality of life scores during the intervention period.Limitations This RCT was limited by the small sample size due to restriction of recruitment to middle-sized cities within geographically diverse sites in southern Sweden. Larger trials are needed, also in primary health care and employment services settings.Conclusions IES is more effective than TVR for attaining employment and improving depressive symptoms. On a societal level, IES closes the time and service gap between treatment and employment, and thus lowers sick-leave costs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research in SE now includes other disabilities such as spinal cord injury and affective disorders.
“Although research in SE first looked at those with severe mental illness, it now includes other disabilities such as spinal cord injury [16, 24] and affective disorders [17].”
From Supported employment: Meta-analysis and review of randomized controlled trials of individual placement and support (2019) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Bejerholm, U., Larsson, M. E., & Johanson, S.
- Affiliations
- Lund University (SE)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Bejerholm, Ulrika
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 207
- Pages
- 212-220
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2528917159
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 16.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Keywords
- supported employment, mood disorders, vocational rehabilitation, employment rate, depression severity, quality of life, time to employment, sick leave costs
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Single-Blind Method, Employment, Supported, Treatment Outcome, Mood Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review