4.5 Article

A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of supported employment

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 125, 期 2, 页码 157-167

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01780.x

关键词

supported employment; individual placement and support; vocational rehabilitation; severe mental illness; randomised controlled trial

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [3200-064032]
  2. Federal Social Insurance Office
  3. Stanley Thomas Johnson Foundation
  4. Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation
  5. Bank Vontobel Foundation
  6. Dosenbach-Waser Foundation
  7. Karl Mayer Foundation.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Although numerous randomised controlled trials indicated the superiority of supported employment (SE), we still have too little evidence that SE is more effective than traditional vocational rehabilitation programmes (TVR) in Western European countries with highly developed social security and welfare systems, sophisticated rehabilitation programmes and high thresholds to the open labour market. The aim of this study is to prove the efficacy of SE in Switzerland. Method: Following a 2-week intake assessment, 100 unemployed persons with stabilised severe mental illness (SMI) were randomly assigned to either the SE programme (n = 46) or to the most viable locally available TVR (n = 54). Follow-up lasted 24 months. Results: After the first year, the rate of competitive employment reached a mean level of 48.2% in the SE group and of 18.5% in the TVR group. 58.7% of the SE group were ever competitively employed as opposed to 25.9% of the TVR group. In the second year, SE group participants were competitively employed for 24.5 weeks as compared with 10.2 in the TVR group. The groups showed no significant differences in the non-vocational outcome criteria. Conclusion: The SE programme in Switzerland also proved more effective than TVR and seems to be applicable to the socio-economic context of Western European countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据