Correction to “Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Expanded Implementation of Supported Education Within Community Youth Mental Health Services”

Abstract

Ardill-Young, O., S. Teasdale, A. Ottavio, H. Galley, R. Singh, R. King, P. Levy, A. Scully, G. Chinnery, J. Nicholas, E. Killackey, and J. Curtis. 2025. “Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Expanded Implementation of Supported Education Within Community Youth Mental Health Services.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 19: e70043. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.70043.

In this article, Section 4.1 “Educational Outcomes” contains the following paragraph:

“As one of the first IPS-based supported education programmes embedded within routine clinical practice, there is a lack of valid comparison data available (Hofstra et al. 2023; Reddy Annapally et al. 2021). One comparable intervention is Digital Work and Study Services, a programme delivered in headspace centres nationally. The intervention is also IPS-based, though time-limited to a maximum of 6 months, providing work and study support to young people aged 15–25 through a digital platform. An evaluation between July 2019 and March 2020 found that 45 (18.1%) of the 248 young people who entered and completed the programme achieved positive study outcomes (commencing or maintaining education). This is considerably fewer than in the current paper, though, as a combined work and study intervention, the proportion of young people specifically accessing support for education is unclear as goals are not reported. Interestingly, the majority of positive outcomes in the evaluation were commencement of education (31 (69%) of the 45), in contrast to the current paper and the first year of IPS(Ed) implementation.”

We have noted that the reference to the Digital Work and Study Services which is described was omitted. The sentence “One comparable intervention is Digital Work and Study Services, a programme delivered in headspace centres nationally.” makes reference to the evaluation of this programme conducted by KPMG for the Department of Social Services in 2020. The full reference to this evaluation is: KPMG for the Department of Social Services. (2020). Digital Work and Study Service Evaluation. https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-employment-reforms/resource/digital-work-and-study-service-evaluation-2020.

We have inserted the appropriate reference within the paragraph in Section 4.1 “Educational Outcomes”: “As one of the first IPS-based supported education programmes embedded within routine clinical practice, there is a lack of valid comparison data available (Hofstra et al. 2023; Reddy Annapally et al. 2021). One comparable intervention is Digital Work and Study Services, a programme delivered in headspace centres nationally (KPMG for the Department of Social Services 2020). The intervention is also IPS-based, though time-limited to a maximum of 6 months, providing work and study support to young people aged 15–25 through a digital platform. An evaluation between July 2019 and March 2020 found that 45 (18.1%) of the 248 young people who entered and completed the programme achieved positive study outcomes (commencing or maintaining education) (KPMG for the Department of Social Services 2020). This is considerably fewer than in the current paper, though, as a combined work and study intervention, the proportion of young people specifically accessing support for education is unclear as goals are not reported. Interestingly, the majority of positive outcomes in the evaluation were commencement of education (31 (69%) of the 45), in contrast to the current paper and the first year of IPS(Ed) implementation (KPMG for the Department of Social Services 2020).”

We apologize for this error.