ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2023
Intersectional perspectives on the employment rate in Supported Employment for people with psychiatric, neuropsychiatric, or intellectual disabilities: A scoping review.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual placement and support (IPS): duration of employment support and equity of access and outcome in routine clinical practice.BJPsych bulletin · 2025Article
- Implementing Supported Employment in the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration - Experiences from employment specialists and critical implementation issues.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of employment in severe mental illness: an umbrella review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSupported Employment (SE) has shown better results in the employment rate for persons with disabilities than other methods within vocational rehabilitation, but how SE affects the employment rate for subgroups in the interventions needs further attention.
objectiveTo examine previous research regarding the influence of intersecting statuses on the employment rate in SE for people with psychiatric, neuropsychiatric, or intellectual disabilities according to type of diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, age, level of education and previous work history.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in nine databases including peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to April 2021. Articles presenting the employment rate in SE interventions according to the intersecting statuses listed in the objective were included.
resultsThe searches identified 3777 unique records, of which 53 articles were included in data extraction. In most of the included articles, intersecting statuses did not affect the employment rate for people in the SE interventions with psychiatric disabilities. Few studies have examined neuropsychiatric and intellectual disabilities. A majority of the studies subjected to full-text analysis were excluded due to a lack of reporting of the effects of intersecting statuses on the employment rate. The studies that reported on the effects of intersecting statuses on the employment rate often had small samples and lacked statistical power.
conclusionsIntersecting statuses do not appear to affect the employment rate for people receiving SE interventions, but systematic reviews with pooled samples need to be undertaken because of the low reporting rate and underpowered sample sizes in existing studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.