Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38867819›Full record

ReviewPCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2023

Individual placement and support: History, current status, and future directions.

Robert E Drake, Gary R Bond

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert E DrakeDepartment of Psychiatry Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons New York City New York USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5180-547X
Gary R BondWestat Corporation Rockville Maryland USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past three decades, Individual Placement and Support (IPS) has emerged as a robust evidence-based approach to helping people with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, to obtain and succeed in competitive employment. This review addresses the history, principles, research, and future directions of IPS. It covers current evidence on employment outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and nonvocational outcomes. It also describes current attempts to extend IPS to new populations. The authors provide an overview of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials involving people with serious mental illness. For studies addressing nonvocational outcomes and new populations, the review uses best available evidence. Published reviews agree that IPS enables patients with serious mental illness in high-income countries to succeed in competitive employment at a higher rate than patients who receive other vocational interventions. Within IPS programs, quality of implementation, measured by standardized fidelity scales, correlates with better outcomes. Employment itself leads to enhanced income, psychosocial outcomes, clinical improvements, and decreased mental health service use. As IPS steadily spreads to new populations and new settings, research is active across high-income countries and spreading slowly to middle-income countries. IPS is an evidence-based practice for people with serious mental illness in high-income countries. It shows promise to help other disability groups also, and emerging research aims to clarify adaptations and outcomes.

Indexed as

cost‐effectiveness analysisemploymentmeta‐analysissupported employmentsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID38867819
PMCPMC11114326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.