The impact of co-location employment partnerships within the Australian mental health service and policy context: A systematic review.
Sue Mallick, Md Shahidul Islam
PMID 35429075WHAT IT FOUND
Adults with serious mental illness wanted competitive work, but poor access to services, unstable life circumstances and funding rules limited employment.
The review found no Australian evidence that co-location partnerships improved outcomes.
Key findings
01The review found no Australian literature that investigated the impact of non-IPS co-location partnerships between adult community mental health teams and disability employment services on employment outcomes or consumer choice of work for adults with serious persistent mental illness.
02Included studies identified barriers to disability employment services participation, including fluctuating mental health, inability to access services, poor education and training, extended unemployment, unstable housing, homelessness, financial insecurity, disrupted education, and traumatic experiences.
03Five included studies focused on individual placement and support; they described IPS as effective, but implementation in Australian adult community mental health teams was limited by training gaps, fidelity and funding pressures, and low vocational priority.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review searched only English-language Australian studies published between 2017 and 2021, so it may miss older, international, or non-English evidence. The included-study count is inconsistent: one sentence says eleven studies were summarised, while the selection and overview say twelve. Most included studies were qualitative or mixed-methods, so they describe experiences and service problems, not tested effects of co-location partnerships. No included study directly tested non-IPS co-location partnerships, so the review's central question could not be answered. The authors did not exclude studies based on quality assessment, so weak included studies may have influenced the themes. Titles and abstracts were screened manually by the author, and no automation tools were used.
Declared interests
The paper reports funding from the University of New England.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that co-location partnerships improve employment outcomes for people with serious mental illness. The review found no Australian study that tested those partnerships, and the guidelines are proposals from the authors, not tested interventions.