Individuals experiencing moderate to severe mental illness have low rates of workforce inclusion, with a consequence of high welfare dependency, affecting both societal costs and health. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an approach to supported employment where the goal is to help people obtain jobs on the open rather than sheltered labour markets. Despite multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicating that the IPS model enables employment better than treatment as usual, with widespread adoption in some jurisdictions, the broader impacts of this large-scale implementation on mental health, quality of life and social functioning remain unknown.

Between 2012 and 2019, Norway introduced IPS through both local and national government projects. This study assesses the social and economic benefits of the implementation of IPS using Norwegian registry data, focusing on 18–45-year-old people receiving specialist mental healthcare, and who did not have steady employment at treatment start. Instead of assessing IPS efficacy in an RCT design, we use a naturalistic study design, evaluating IPS effectiveness by comparing aggregate population-level outcomes over time between areas where IPS was not available.

In work package (WP) 1, we mapped the availability and implementation of IPS across Norway. This involved analysing information on funding, resource and capacity levels to understand how IPS had been rolled out across the country. While completed, we include a description of WP1 here, as it informs WP2 and WP3. WP2 is an effectiveness evaluation investigating the population-level outcomes of implementing IPS, focusing on health, mortality, quality of life and social functioning. Finally, in WP3, we assess the financial implications of implementing IPS from a public purse perspective, synthesising data on resource use and costs of implementation with data from WP2.

Overall, we will examine the societal effects of IPS implementation on employment, welfare dependency, mental healthcare use, emergency care visits, self-harm and suicide, general mortality, crime and victimisation. Emphasis will be on long-term outcomes, and we will model the economic consequences of IPS. This study aims to inform policy making and strategies for implementing IPS at scale.

This is an effectiveness study using registry data. The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics Northern Norway, REK North has approved the use of registry data without informed consent for this project (approval number 134553).

The findings will be disseminated both in academic peer-reviewed journals, directly to informants in WP1, to the public through media and the project website, and at relevant conferences and seminars for specific relevant target groups.

Not applicable

Shoulder osteoarthritis most commonly affects older adults, causing pain, reduced function and quality of life. Total shoulder replacements (TSRs) are indicated once other non-surgical options no longer provide adequate pain relief. Two main types of TSRs are widely used: anatomic TSR (aTSR) and reverse TSR (rTSR). It is not clear whether one TSR type provides better short- or long-term outcomes for patients, and which, if either, is more cost-effective for the National Health Service (NHS).

RAPSODI-UK is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-parallel arm, superiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of aTSR versus rTSR for adults aged 60+ with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff and bone stock suitable for TSR. Participants in both arms of the trial will receive usual post-operative rehabilitation. We aim to recruit 430 participants from approximately 28 NHS sites across the UK. The primary outcome is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) at 2 years post-randomisation. Outcomes will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the pain and function subscales of the SPADI, the Oxford Shoulder Score, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), complications, range of movement and strength, revisions and mortality. The between-group difference in the primary outcome will be derived from a constrained longitudinal data analysis model. We will also undertake a full health economic evaluation and conduct qualitative interviews to explore perceptions of acceptability of the two types of TSR and experiences of recovery with a sample of participants.

Ethics committee approval for this trial was obtained (London - Queen Square Research Ethics Committee, Rec Reference 22/LO/0617) on 4 October 2022. The results of the main trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and using other professional and media outlets.

ISRCTN12216466.