Economic analyses of supported employment programmes for people with mental health conditions: a systematic review

Park, A-La ORCID: 0000-0002-4704-4874, Rinaldi, Miles, Brinchmann, Beate, Killackey, Eoin, Aars, Nils Abel P., Mykletun, Arnstein and McDaid, David ORCID: 0000-0003-0744-2664 (2022) Economic analyses of supported employment programmes for people with mental health conditions: a systematic review. European Psychiatry, 65 (1). e51. ISSN 0924-9338

Text (economic-analyses-of-supported-employment-programmes-for-people-with-mental-health-conditions-a-systematic-review) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (513kB)

• Author
• Author
• Scopus publication

Abstract

Background Employment is intrinsic to recovery from mental health conditions, helping people live independently. Systematic reviews indicate supported employment (SE) focused on competitive employment, including individual placement and support (IPS), is effective in helping people with mental health conditions into work. Evidence is limited on cost-effectiveness. We comprehensively reviewed evidence on the economic case for SE/IPS programmes. Methods We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBSS, Business Source Complete and EconLit for economic and return on investment analyses of SE/IPS programmes for mental health conditions. Traditional vocational rehabilitation, sheltered work, and return to work initiatives after sickness absence of less than one year were excluded. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers. We assessed quality using the Consolidate Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) checklist. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO-CRD42020184359. 39 Results From 40,015 references, 28 studies examined the economic case for IPS, four IPS augmented by another intervention, and 24 other forms of SE. Studies were very heterogenous, quality was variable. Of 41 studies with quality scores over 50% ten reported cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year gained, (eight favourable to SE/IPS), 14 net monetary benefits (12 positive), five return on investment (four 45 positive) and 20 cost per employment outcome (14 favourable, 5 inconclusive, 1 negative). 24 of these 41 studies had monetary benefits that more than outweighed the additional costs of SE/IPS programmes. Conclusion There is a strong economic case for the implementation of SE/IPS programmes. The economic case is conservative as evidence on long-Term impacts of programmes is limited.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-p...
Additional Information:	© 2022 The Authors
Divisions:	Care Policy and Evaluation Centre
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory
Date Deposited:	14 Sep 2022 11:33
Last Modified:	16 Nov 2024 21:33
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/116610

Actions (login required)

View Item