Vocational rehabilitation in psychiatry: A re-evaluation

Objective: To highlight the vocational gap in the provision of psychiatric rehabilitation, to outline the goals and conceptual framework of psychiatric rehabilitation, and to discuss rehabilitation interventions with specific reference to vocational rehabilitation and the evidence base for supported employment. Conclusions and service implications: Vocational psychiatric rehabilitation has been a neglected area of practice in Australian psychiatry. Psychiatric treatment needs to adopt a more balanced approach in the provision of a range of services, including vocational rehabilitation, in order to improve long-term outcomes for people suffering from psychiatric disability. A vocational focus should be included in psychiatric rehabilitation and better integration between mental health services and vocational services needs to take place. Supported employment is an evidence-based practice that is designed to help people with psychiatric disabilities participate as much as possible in the competitive job market.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: vocational rehabilitation for schizophrenia and related conditions

Objective: Existing evidence suggests that vocational rehabilitation services, in particular individual placement and support (IPS), are effective in assisting people with schizophrenia and related conditions gain open employment. Despite this, such services are not available to all unemployed people with schizophrenia who wish to work. Existing evidence suggests that while IPS confers no clinical advantages over routine care, it does improve the proportion of people returning to employment. The objective of the current study is to investigate the net benefit of introducing IPS services into current mental health services in Australia. Method: The net benefit of IPS is assessed from a health sector perspective using cost-benefit analysis. A two-stage approach is taken to the assessment of benefit. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis of the net benefit, defined as the benefits of IPS (comprising transfer payments averted, income tax accrued and individual income earned) minus the costs. The second stage involves application of 'second-filter' criteria (including equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders) to results. The robustness of results is tested using the multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The costs of IPS are $A10.3M (95% uncertainty interval $A7.4M-$A13.6M), the benefits are $A4.7M ($A3.1M-$A6.5M), resulting in a negative net benefit of $A5.6M ($A8.4M-$A3.4M). Conclusions: The current analysis suggests that IPS costs are greater than the monetary benefits. However, the evidence-base of the current analysis is weak. Structural conditions surrounding welfare payments in Australia create disincentives to full-time employment for people with disabilities.