Yes

The clients were contacted by the first author as soon as possible after inclusion in the programme. The clients were given the opportunity to choose where the data collection would take place and this was usually at the SE office. However, but some interviews were held in the client‚ residence or in the first author‚ office at the university. In most cases, the data collection lasted for 60‚Äì90 minutes to complete the questionnaires.

A comparison of individuals who were randomized (n=69) to IPS or the Brokered treatment with those who were not randomized (n=18) reveals no statistically significant demographic differences between the two samples. Similarly the randomized individuals did not differ significantly from those who were not randomized in prior illness indicators or symptom severity at screening.

A self administered baseline questionnaire was completed by patients. The overall score on 8 items that were predictive of return to work, according to a previous cohort study, was treated as a predictor of return to work. Variables included:age, gender, diagnosis, type of cancer treatment, depressed mood, physical complaints, physical workload and fatigue. Additionally, satisfaction on the advice from the educational materials was gained during a semi-structured interview. At this time the participants rated the materials on a scale of one (very poor) to 10(very good). Satisfaction with each of the 10 steps, (ie.adherence to the advice), was also rated as useful, somewhat useful, not useful or redundant. Occupational physicians were also interviewed about their satisfaction and perceived influence of the letters and educational material.

A total of 22,878 studies were retrieved using databases comprised of Cochrane, Scholar's Portal, CINAHL,EMBASE, ERIC, Medline, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Google, review of key ASD Association websites. All articles identified were reviewed using a 3 state retrieval and synthesis process including: initial screening, strict screening for inclusion or exclusion and data extraction and article review. A conceptual scheme was developed for cross comparison of studies whereby interventions and outcomes were reviewed, analyzed and categorized to a common theme.

A focus group was help to identify common themes about health, health care, economic security, and return to work. Analysis were descriptive and qualitative. Transcripts of the group meeting were read along with moderator notes. General themes were pulled from this material.

Data was gathered using administrative databases and other records located at the three centres. Job roles were classified using the UK standard occupational classification system. Data on outcomes was classified into one of the following: paid competitive work, education and training, voluntary work, discharge to other services, client withdrew and discharged for other reasons.

This study used archival data from four independent RCTs to determine the effect of IPS supported employment on clients with co-occurring substance use disorders. Institutional Review Boards at local sites and participating universities approved the four studies. In addition, the Institutional Review Board of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis approved the data re-analyses reported here. To evaluate differences at baseline between the clients randomized to IPS compared to the comparison programs on demographic, diagnostic, clinical, and background characteristics, study computed t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables.

Several assessments were used: diagnosis,
background information, employment outcomes, and nonvocational outcomes. Interviews were completed by one of three research staff and reliability checks were conducted on 15% of the interviews by having a 2nd person review the interviews.

Job satisfaction was rated by the Indiana Job Satisfaction Scale. PANSS was used for nonvocational outcomes and modified to be entirely client self-report.

Overall functioning was rated by the Global Assessment Scale, while social and leisure functioning was rated using one subscale from the Social Adjustment Scale-II: Social-Leisure subscale, as well as a global rating.

Social network information was rated with a variant of the Social Support and Social Network Interview and was requested at baseline, 12 months and 24 months. Quality of Life was assessed through the Brief Version of Quality of Life Interview. Substance abuse was also tracked using the Alcohol Use Scale and Drug Use Scale.

Statistical analyses were conducted as follows:
- "Intent-to-treat analyses of employment outcomes were conducted on the entire randomized sample" (p. 483).
- A second set of analyses were conducted to determine if clients differed in their vocational outcomes.
- Employment outcomes were collected over the entire 2-year period. The 3 groups on time to job were restricted to clients who obtained any work.
-Changes in non-vocational outcomes used mixed-effects regression models, using the vocational program as the independent variable.

Throughout the 2 years of the study information on work, including the type of job, wages, and hours worked, was obtained weekly through brief interviews with clients and vocational staff. In addition, job satisfaction was rated using the Indiana Job Satisfaction Scale 2 weeks after beginning a new job and bi-monthly thereafter as long as clients remain on the job.

Those who consented to participate, completed a Workplace Fundamentals Knowledge Test. Afterwards they were randomly assigned to receive supported employment services alone or to receive supported employment services and the supplementary skills training about workplace fundamentals. Individuals were assigned to the group on an average of 56 days after obtaining a job. Among the 35 participants, 18 received treatment as usual (supported employment services alone) the rest were assigned to the receive the work fundamentals training too. Chi square test and t test indicated no significant difference in the two groups. Workplace knowledge was measured with the Workplace Fundamental Knowledge Test scores at baseline and at nine month intervals. Rates of employment for each month of the study period for individuals who recently went to work was documented by control group and workplace fundamentals group. These rates were compared using a generalized estimating equations analysis. The researchers also compared cumulative time worked, wages earned and job tenure for the first and subsequent jobs held. Mann-Whitney tests were used because that data was skewed. Vocational services used were also analyzed with Mann-Whitney tests.