Individual placement and support (IPS) is an evidence-based service model to support people with mental disorders in obtaining and sustaining competitive employment. IPS is increasingly offered to a broad variety of service users. In this meta-analysis we analysed the relative effectiveness of IPS for different subgroups of service users both based on the diagnosis and defined by a range of clinical, functional and personal characteristics.

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated IPS for service users diagnosed with any mental disorder. We examined effect sizes for the between-group differences at follow-up for three outcome measures (employment rate, job duration and wages), controlling for methodological confounders (type of control group, follow-up duration and geographic region). Using sensitivity analyses of subgroup differences, we analysed moderating effects of the following diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics: severe mental illness (SMI), common mental disorders (CMD), schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, duration of illness, the severity of symptoms, level of functioning, age, comorbid alcohol and substance use, education level and employment history.

IPS is effective in improving employment outcomes compared to the control group in all subgroups, regardless of any methodological confounder. However, IPS was relatively more effective for service users with SMIs, schizophrenia spectrum disorders and a low symptom severity. Although IPS was still effective for people with CMD and with major depressive disorder, it was relatively less effective for these subgroups. IPS was equally effective after both a short and a long follow-up period. However, we found small, but clinically not meaningful, differences in effectiveness of IPS between active and passive control groups. Finally, IPS was relatively less effective in European studies compared to non-European studies, which could be explained by a potential benefits trap in high welfare countries.

IPS is effective for all different subgroups, regardless of diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics. However, there might be a risk of false-positive subgroup outcomes and results should be handled with caution. Future research should focus on whether, and if so, how the IPS model should be adapted to better meet the vocational needs of people with CMD and higher symptom severity.

Sheltered housing is associated with quality-of-life improvements for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). However, there are equivocal findings around safety outcomes related to this type of living condition.

We aimed to investigate raw differences in prevalence and incidence of crime victimisation in sheltered housing compared with living alone or with family; and to identify groups at high risk for victimisation, using demographic and clinical factors. We do so by reporting estimated victimisation incidents for each risk group.

A large, community-based, cross-sectional survey of 956 people with SMI completed the Dutch Crime and Victimisation Survey. Data was collected on victimisation prevalence and number of incidents in the past year.

Victimisation prevalence was highest among residents in sheltered housing (50.8%) compared with persons living alone (43%) or with family (37.8%). We found that sheltered housing was associated with increased raw victimisation incidence (incidence rate ratio: 2.80, 95% CI 2.36–3.34 compared with living with family; 1.87, 95% CI 1.59–2.20 compared with living alone). Incidence was especially high for some high-risk groups, including men, people with comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder and those with high levels of education. However, women reported less victimisation in sheltered housing than living alone or with family, if they also reported drug or alcohol use.

The high prevalence and incidence of victimisation among residents in sheltered housing highlights the need for more awareness and surveillance of victimisation in this population group, to better facilitate a recovery-enabling environment for residents with SMI.

Globally, millions are exposed to stressors at work that increase their vulnerability to develop mental health conditions and substance misuse (such as soldiers, policemen, doctors). However, these types of professionals especially are expected to be strong and healthy, and this contrast may worsen their treatment gap. Although the treatment gap in the military has been studied before, perspectives of different stakeholders involved have largely been ignored, even though they play an important role.

To study the barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in the military, from three different perspectives.

In total, 46 people participated, divided into eight homogeneous focus groups, including three perspectives: soldiers with mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 20), soldiers without mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 10) and mental health professionals (n = 16). Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done by applying a general inductive approach using ATLAS.ti-8.4.4 software.

Five barriers for treatment-seeking were identified: fear of negative career consequences, fear of social rejection, confidentiality concerns, the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture and practical barriers. Three facilitators were identified: social support, accessibility and knowledge, and healthcare within the military. The views of the different stakeholder groups were highly congruent.

Barriers for treatment-seeking were mostly stigma related (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection and the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture) and this was widely recognised by all groups. Social support from family, peers, supervisors and professionals were identified as important facilitators. A decrease in the treatment gap for mental health conditions and substance misuse is needed and these findings provide direction for future research and destigmatising interventions.

Psychiatric rehabilitation (PR) can improve functioning in people with severe mental illness (SMI), but outcomes are still suboptimal. Cognitive impairments have severe implications for functioning and might reduce the effects of PR. It has been demonstrated that performance in cognitive tests can be improved by cognitive remediation (CR). However, there is no consistent evidence that CR as a stand-alone intervention leads to improvements in real-life functioning. The present study investigated whether a combination of PR and CR enhances the effect of a stand-alone PR or CR intervention on separate domains of functioning.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of PR combined with CR in people with SMI was conducted, reporting on functioning outcomes. A multivariate meta-regression analysis was carried out to evaluate moderator effects.

The meta-analysis included 23 studies with 1819 patients. Enhancing PR with CR had significant beneficial effects on vocational outcomes (e.g. employment rate: SMD = 0.41), and social skills (SMD = 0.24). No significant effects were found on relationships and outcomes of community functioning. Effects on vocational outcomes were moderated by years of education, intensity of the intervention, type of CR approach and integration of treatment goals for PR and CR. Type of PR was no significant moderator.

Augmenting PR by adding cognitive training can improve vocational and social functioning in patients with SMI more than a stand-alone PR intervention. First indications exist that a synergetic mechanism also works the other way around, with beneficial effects of the combined intervention compared with a stand-alone CR intervention.

No study has so far explored differences in discrimination reported by people with major depressive disorder (MDD) across countries and cultures.

To (a) compare reported discrimination across different countries, and (b) explore the relative weight of individual and contextual factors in explaining levels of reported discrimination in people with MDD.

Cross-sectional multisite international survey (34 countries worldwide) of 1082 people with MDD. Experienced and anticipated discrimination were assessed by the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC). Countries were classified according to their rating on the Human Development Index (HDI). Multilevel negative binomial and Poisson models were used.

People living in ‘very high HDI’ countries reported higher discrimination than those in ‘medium/low HDI’ countries. Variation in reported discrimination across countries was only partially explained by individual-level variables. The contribution of country-level variables was significant for anticipated discrimination only.

Contextual factors play an important role in anticipated discrimination. Country-specific interventions should be implemented to prevent discrimination towards people with MDD.