Employment Status and Personal Income Before and After Onset of a Severe Mental Disorder: A Case-Control Study
Abstract
Objective:
Individuals with severe mental disorders have an impaired ability to work and are likely to receive income transfer payments as their main source of income. However, the magnitude of this phenomenon remains unclear. Using longitudinal population cohort register data, the authors conducted a case-control study to examine the levels of employment and personal income before and after a first hospitalization for a serious mental disorder.
Methods:
All individuals (N=50,551) who had been hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder in Finland between 1988 and 2015 were identified and matched with five randomly selected participants who were the same sex and who had the same birth year and month. Employment status and earnings, income transfer payments, and total income in euros were measured annually from 1988 to 2015.
Results:
Individuals with serious mental disorders had notably low levels of employment before, and especially after, the diagnosis of a severe mental disorder. Their total income was mostly constituted of transfer payments, and this was especially true for those diagnosed as having schizophrenia. More than half of all individuals with a serious mental disorder did not have any employment earnings after they received the diagnosis.
Conclusions:
The current study shows how most individuals in Finland depend solely on income transfer payments after an onset of a severe mental disorder.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Using high-quality register data from Finland, the authors examined employment and income levels of individuals before and after a first hospitalization for a serious mental disorder between 1988 and 2015.
•
A serious mental disorder was associated with low levels of employment before and after the diagnosis.
•
Most individuals with serious mental disorders depended on income transfer payments after an onset of a mental disorder.
It is well established that individuals with severe mental disorders have an impaired ability to work. Consequently, many of them are unemployed or completely out of the labor force. Individuals with schizophrenia or other nonaffective psychotic disorders are often already unemployed years before their first actual hospitalization (1, 2). This pattern most likely explains the low reported employment rates among individuals with schizophrenia (i.e., the estimates range from 10% to 30%) (3–6). Although slightly higher rates of employment, from 40% to 60%, have been documented for individuals with bipolar disorder (7), a recent study using national hospitalization registry from Israel found that only approximately 25% of all patients with bipolar disorder earned more than the prevailing national minimum wage (2).
However, in most welfare states with a comprehensive social safety net, individuals with severe mental disorders are highly likely to receive a fixed-term or even a permanent disability pension after they have been diagnosed. These disability pensions are composed of income transfer payments. Because the functional recovery rate from serious mental disorders is remarkably low (8, 9)—in schizophrenia only around 15% (10)—individuals with severe mental disorders are likely to have transfer payments as their main source of income after the onset of a mental disorder. However, the exact magnitude of this phenomenon is currently unclear because there is a lack of large-scale studies on the topic.
In this study, we examined employment, income, and social income transfer levels before and after a hospitalization for a serious mental disorder (i.e., schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder). To conduct a comprehensive and nationwide case-control analysis, we used Finnish longitudinal population cohort register data, which include all admissions to Finnish hospitals.
Methods
Study Population
Using unique personal identifiers, which have been allocated to all Finnish residents beginning in 1969, we linked the Hospital Discharge Register of the National Institute for Health and Welfare, the full Finnish population register (FOLK), and the Finnish Longitudinal Employer-Employee Data (FLEED) register of Statistics Finland to construct the current study population. The Hospital Discharge Register was used to identify all individuals who had been hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder. FOLK is constructed from administrative registers, is updated annually, and contains demographic characteristics of the whole Finnish population. FLEED is composed of comprehensive annual panel data that record the entire Finnish working-age population. It is constructed from administrative registers including information on individuals’ labor market status, salaries, and other sources of income extracted from tax and other administrative registers, such as mandatory government-run pension programs. FLEED is available from 1988 onward; for the current study, we used data from 1988 to 2015.
Participants in the Case and Control Groups
Case groups were defined by identifying all individuals who had been hospitalized for schizophrenia (ICD-10, F20), other nonaffective psychosis (ICD-10, F22–29), or bipolar disorder (ICD-10, F30–31) between 1988 and 2015 in Finland. Individuals who were diagnosed as having schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder before age 15 or after age 60 were excluded. Only data from the first such hospitalization and primary diagnoses were used, and thus an individual was categorized only into one diagnostic group (e.g., schizophrenia). Using FOLK data, we randomly selected five participants who did not have a diagnosis of a severe mental disorder as the control group for each case participant. As matching criteria, we used sex as well as birth year and month. The control participant had to be alive and live in Finland during the year when the case participant was diagnosed. Thus, the differences observed between participants in the case and control groups represent differences between individuals with a severe mental disorder and a random population-based sample. Participants in the case and control groups were followed over the same observation period.
Ethical Permission
This study was approved by the ethics committees of the National Institutes of Health and Welfare. Data were linked with the permission of the National Institutes of Health and Welfare and Statistics Finland.
Socioeconomic Measures
Annual employment status was measured as the employment status during the last week of each calendar year. Individuals who were working or self-employed were defined as employed. All others were classified as not employed. Personal income was measured annually, and the following three different measures of income were used: taxable income, earnings, and income transfer payments. Taxable income is a broad income measure. It includes annual wage and salary earnings, self-employment income, capital income (dividends and capital gains), social security benefits (e.g., parental leave and unemployment benefits), and income transfers (e.g., child allowance). Earnings were measured as the average of annual wage and salary earnings and self-employed income for each year. Income transfer payments consist of social security benefits and income transfers, including permanent and temporary pensions. To allow for the comparability of income measures over the observation period, all measures were adjusted to the base year 2015 by using the official consumer price index maintained by Statistics Finland.
Statistical Analyses
Data were constructed such that the time point zero represented the year when the first hospitalization for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder occurred for each case participant. If an individual did not have data for a certain year, the corresponding case or control participant was not included in the statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics of the proportions of individuals who were employed as well as the mean and median (rounded to the nearest 10th) earnings, income transfer payments, and total income levels were reported for three diagnostic groups (schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, and bipolar disorder) and three corresponding control groups. Differences between group means in total income were examined using nonparametric bootstrap analysis (11) because statistical assumptions for parametric tests (i.e., normal distribution and homogeneity of variance) were violated. Stata, version 15.1, was used in all statistical analyses.
Results
Altogether, 50,551 individuals with severe mental disorders were identified during the study period. For 6,939 individuals, the first inpatient diagnosis was schizophrenia; for 34,565 individuals, the first inpatient diagnosis was other nonaffective psychosis; and for 9,047 individuals, the first inpatient diagnosis was bipolar disorder. The number of participants in the three diagnosis categories and their matched control groups per measurement year are shown in Table 1.
| Schizophrenia | Nonaffective psychosis | Bipolar disorder | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Case | Control | Case | Control | Case | Control |
| −10 | 2,287 | 11,435 | 11,406 | 57,030 | 4,615 | 23,075 |
| −9 | 2,648 | 13,240 | 12,940 | 64,700 | 5,005 | 25,025 |
| −8 | 3,073 | 15,365 | 14,685 | 73,425 | 5,434 | 27,170 |
| −7 | 3,497 | 17,485 | 16,614 | 83,070 | 5,853 | 29,265 |
| −6 | 3,937 | 19,685 | 18,794 | 93,970 | 6,315 | 31,575 |
| −5 | 4,362 | 21,810 | 21,108 | 105,540 | 6,751 | 33,755 |
| −4 | 4,875 | 24,375 | 23,567 | 117,835 | 7,155 | 35,775 |
| −3 | 5,335 | 26,675 | 26,133 | 130,665 | 7,591 | 37,955 |
| −2 | 5,789 | 28,945 | 28,703 | 143,515 | 8,022 | 40,110 |
| −1 | 6,332 | 31,660 | 31,487 | 157,435 | 8,510 | 42,550 |
| 0b | 6,939 | 34,695 | 34,565 | 172,825 | 9,047 | 45,235 |
| 1 | 6,546 | 32,730 | 32,213 | 161,065 | 8,327 | 41,635 |
| 2 | 6,208 | 31,040 | 30,131 | 150,655 | 7,664 | 38,320 |
| 3 | 5,858 | 29,290 | 28,291 | 141,455 | 7,109 | 35,545 |
| 4 | 5,588 | 27,940 | 26,492 | 132,460 | 6,521 | 32,605 |
| 5 | 5,297 | 26,485 | 24,891 | 124,455 | 5,934 | 29,670 |
| 6 | 5,020 | 25,100 | 23,292 | 116,460 | 5,358 | 26,790 |
| 7 | 4,680 | 23,400 | 21,787 | 108,935 | 4,785 | 23,925 |
| 8 | 4,412 | 22,060 | 20,226 | 101,130 | 4,223 | 21,115 |
| 9 | 4,117 | 20,585 | 18,778 | 93,890 | 3,693 | 18,465 |
| 10 | 3,801 | 19,005 | 17,413 | 87,065 | 3,224 | 16,120 |
a
Participants in the case group were hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder between 1988 and 2015 in Finland. The control group was made up of individuals who did not have a diagnosis of a severe mental disorder and who were matched by sex and birth year and month.
b
Year 0, the year in which the diagnosis was given (year of onset).
Figure 1 reports the average employment status for case and control groups. In all years, the average employment status was clearly lowest among individuals with schizophrenia and highest among individuals with bipolar disorder compared with the control groups. At the end of the year when the first inpatient diagnosis was given, on average, 14% (N=968) of individuals with schizophrenia, 33% (N=11,335) of individuals with other nonaffective psychosis, and 43% (N=3,875) of individuals with bipolar disorder were employed. In comparison, between 65% (N=112,259) and 69% (N=31,242) of the participants in the control groups were employed. There was a clear decreasing trend in the average employment status during the years before the first inpatient diagnosis was given, and after that the average employment status remained relatively stable.
FIGURE 1. Mean employment levels for participants with schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder and their matched control groupsa
aThe time point zero denotes the year when the first hospitalization for participants with a serious mental disorder occurred. All participants were hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder between 1988 and 2015 in Finland. The control group was made up of individuals who did not have a diagnosis of a severe mental disorder and who were matched by sex and birth year and month.
Average yearly earnings, income transfer payments, and total taxable income for participants in the case and control groups are shown in Figure 2. The average total taxable income was approximately two times higher for individuals with bipolar disorder and around 1.5 times higher for individuals with other nonaffective psychosis compared with individuals with schizophrenia. The differences in the average total income between individuals with schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder and their matched control groups were all statistically significant (p<0.001).
FIGURE 2. Mean levels of earnings, income transfer payments, and total income for participants with schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder and their matched control groupsa
aThe time point zero denotes the year when the first hospitalization for participants with a serious mental disorder occurred. All participants were hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder between 1988 and 2015 in Finland. The control group was made up of individuals who did not have a diagnosis of a severe mental disorder and who were matched by sex and birth year and month. Differences in the mean total income between participants with schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder and the matched control groups were statistically significant (p<.001).
The dynamics of the relationship between earnings and income transfers were rather similar in the three case groups. First, the average earnings decreased rapidly between 1 and 3 years before the diagnosis, and then the earnings remained rather stable. By contrast, the average income transfers increased during the year when the first inpatient diagnosis was given, and this increasing trend continued during the following years. On average, during the year when the first inpatient diagnosis was given, individuals with schizophrenia earned 40% of the total income earned by the control group, compared with 61% among individuals with other nonaffective psychosis and 76% among individuals with bipolar disorder. Five years later, the same proportions were 39%, 54%, and 67%, respectively; 10 years later, they were 37%, 51%, and 66%, respectively.
Median earnings, median social income payments, and the median total taxable income for participants in the case and control groups are shown in Figure 3. Already years before the first inpatient diagnosis, the median earnings were zero among individuals with schizophrenia. Higher median earnings were found for individuals with other nonaffective psychosis (around 3,000 euros 3 years before diagnosis) or bipolar disorder (around 9,000 euros 3 years before diagnosis). However, in these two groups, the median earnings dropped to zero after the year when the diagnosis had been given. The median income transfers were rather equal across the three groups.
FIGURE 3. Median earnings, income transfer payments, and total income for participants with schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder and their matched control groupsa
aThe time point zero denotes the year when the first hospitalization for participants with a serious mental disorder occurred. All participants were hospitalized for schizophrenia, other nonaffective psychosis, or bipolar disorder between 1988 and 2015 in Finland. The control group was made up of individuals who did not have a diagnosis of a severe mental disorder and who were matched by sex and birth year and month.
Discussion
Using comprehensive register data of individuals hospitalized with a severe mental disorder in Finland, in this study we have demonstrated that individuals with a serious mental disorder had a notably low level of participation in the labor market before and especially after their first inpatient diagnosis. There was a clear gradient between incomes of the case groups and the control groups, with disorders of greater alleged severity associated with larger income gaps; individuals with schizophrenia had 40% of the total income earned by their matched control group, compared with 61% for individuals with other nonaffective psychosis and 76% for individuals with bipolar disorder. Among individuals with schizophrenia, most of the total income consisted of income transfer payments, and in the two other groups (i.e., other nonaffective psychosis and bipolar disorder), income transfers increased consistently after the diagnosis was given.
These findings are in accordance with previous studies in which low employment rates were reported among individuals with schizophrenia (2–4), other nonaffective psychoses (2), bipolar disorder (7), or other severe mental disorders (12). However, most of the earlier studies did not examine average income over several years or used incomplete and coarse income measures, such as the Israeli study in which at the time of the first diagnosis, 8% of patients with schizophrenia, 12% of patients with other nonaffective psychosis, and 21% of patients with bipolar disorder earned more than the prevailing national minimum wage (2). Moreover, to our knowledge, this study is one of the first to examine the interplay between wage or salary income with a comprehensive measure of income transfer payments.
Our results show that whereas salary income decreased significantly years before the first diagnosis, income transfers increased rapidly during and after the year of the diagnosis. For individuals with schizophrenia, on average, the income transfers constituted approximately 76% of the total taxable income, and even for individuals with bipolar disorder, the share was around 40%. The reported median income transfers increased steadily after the diagnosis of a mental disorder. However, whereas more than half of individuals with other nonaffective psychosis or bipolar disorder had some earnings before the diagnosis, the median earnings were zero among individuals with other nonaffective psychosis after the diagnosis, and they also approached zero among individuals with bipolar disorder. These findings indicate that after an onset of a severe mental disorder, income transfers are the main source of income for most individuals with a severe mental disorder, and their long-term economic well-being depends largely on income transfer payments.
Although not examined in this study, there are several plausible mechanisms that likely explain why individuals with a serious mental disorder have difficulties in getting and maintaining jobs. From the psychosocial factors, for example, poor neurocognitive functioning, problems with intrapersonal or social functioning, current or residual symptoms such as paranoia or anhedonia, untypical behavior, and poor motivation are likely important (8, 13–15). In addition to these factors, poor educational attainment, absenteeism due to time spent in hospital care, and stigmatization further limit the possibilities of finding and maintaining stable employment (16, 17).
Employment is often regarded as a recovery goal among individuals with a severe mental disorder. Supported employment and the individual placement and support (IPS) model have been shown to be at least two times more effective than alternative services in placing individuals with a severe mental disorder in competitive employment (18, 19). Randomized controlled trials from Sweden (20) and Norway (21) have shown that even in a comprehensive welfare system with strong job security, the IPS model has achieved better results than normal care. In addition, there is some evidence that after gaining employment, individuals with a severe mental disorder have lower probability of experiencing psychiatric hospitalization (22). Because the rate of clinical and functional recovery has not been very high among individuals with a severe mental disorder (8), and remarkably low among individuals with schizophrenia (10), it is important to prioritize employment models such as IPS that could enhance the opportunities for individuals with a severe mental disorder to gain stable employment.
In addition to highlighting the importance of proper intervention mechanisms, our findings emphasize the importance of predicting as early as possible whether an individual could possibly develop a serious mental disorder later in life. Targeting employment services for young adults with early-stage mental health problems could also increase the likelihood of getting them employed after an onset of a serious mental disorder (23). This type of service would be especially important because serious mental disorders with an onset in early adulthood have been associated with low levels of employment and educational achievement over the work-life course (24). It could also prevent young adults from falling into the “disability trap,” which refers to a situation in which a person receiving disability benefits is very rarely able to leave disability status because that would threaten his or her benefits. The avoidance of “disability trap” is a major policy concern in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (25). From the public policy perspective, maximizing the labor force participation of individuals with a serious mental disorder would be crucial.
The main strength of this study was the use of high-quality register data that enabled us to combine information of all hospitalizations with accurate employment and income data before and after an individual was diagnosed as having a severe mental disorder. The main limitations were also related to the use of register data, which were originally not designed for research purposes.
First, although the diagnostic validity of schizophrenia (26) and type I bipolar disorder (27) diagnoses has been reported to be good, the diagnostic validity of other nonaffective psychoses and type II bipolar disorder has not been evaluated. However, the diagnoses are often based on clinical observations made during a hospitalization of several weeks, and in typical cases, several diagnostic procedures have been used by a number of psychiatrists, which likely increase the reliability of the diagnoses.
Second, this study included only individuals who were treated in a hospital because of their mental disorder. Individuals who received treatment in primary care or in outpatient clinics, or who did not seek treatment at all, were not included. Thus, our findings may not be applicable to less severe or better-managed serious mental disorders.
Last, our findings, which relate to the dynamics of the relationship between earnings and income transfers, are likely generalizable only to institutional settings where similar welfare systems and income transfer payments exist. Although similar disability policy reforms, ranging from passive income maintenance to active employment encouragement, have been recently conducted in most OECD countries (28), the diversity in disability policies between countries remains substantial (29).
Conclusions
The current findings, which are based on all individuals hospitalized for a severe mental disorder in Finland between 1988 and 2015, show that individuals with a serious mental disorder had a lowered total income years before their first hospitalization and that income transfer payments made up a large part of their total income after their diagnosis. These finding imply that more emphasis should be placed on the employment situation of individuals with a serious mental disorder. From a mental health policy perspective, it is important to estimate whether current employment policies are effective in helping individuals with a serious mental disorder to gain employment.
References
1.
Agerbo E, Byrne M, Eaton WWP, et al: Marital and labor market status in the long run in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61:28–33
2.
Davidson M, Kapara O, Goldberg S, et al: A nation-wide study on the percentage of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients who earn minimum wage or above. Schizophr Bull 2016; 42:443–447
3.
Marwaha S, Johnson S, Bebbington P, et al: Rates and correlates of employment in people with schizophrenia in the UK, France and Germany. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191:30–37
4.
Marwaha S, Johnson S: Schizophrenia and employment—a review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004; 39:337–349
5.
Zivin K, Bohnert ASB, Mezuk B, et al: Employment status of patients in the VA health system: implications for mental health services. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:35–38
6.
Byrne M, Agerbo E, Eaton WW, et al: Parental socio-economic status and risk of first admission with schizophrenia—a Danish national register based study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004; 39:87–96
7.
Marwaha S, Durrani A, Singh S: Employment outcomes in people with bipolar disorder: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2013; 128:179–193
8.
Velthorst E, Fett AJ, Reichenberg A, et al: The 20-year longitudinal trajectories of social functioning in individuals with psychotic disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174:1075–1085
9.
MacQueen GM, Young LT, Joffe RT: A review of psychosocial outcome in patients with bipolar disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001; 103:163–170
10.
Jääskeläinen E, Juola P, Hirvonen N, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2013; 39:1296–1306
11.
Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, et al: Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed. Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 2015
12.
Luciano A, Meara E: Employment status of people with mental illness: national survey data from 2009 and 2010. Psychiatr Serv 2014; 65:1201–1209
13.
Rosenheck R, Leslie D, Keefe R, et al: Barriers to employment for people with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:411–417
14.
Reddy LF, Llerena K, Kern RS: Predictors of employment in schizophrenia: the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Schizophr Res 2016; 176:462–466
15.
Mahmood Z, Keller AV, Burton CZ, et al: Modifiable predictors of supported employment outcomes among people with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2019; 70:782–792
16.
Schaefer J, Giangrande E, Weinberger DR, et al: The global cognitive impairment in schizophrenia: consistent over decades and around the world. Schizophr Res 2013; 150:42–50
17.
Thornicroft G, Brohan E, Rose D, et al: Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination against people with schizophrenia: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2009; 373:408–415
18.
Metcalfe JD, Drake RE, Bond GR: Economic, labor, and regulatory moderators of the effect of individual placement and support among people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull 2018; 44:22–31
19.
Marshall T, Goldberg RW, Braude L, et al: Supported employment: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv 2014; 65:16–23
20.
Bejerholm U, Areberg C, Hofgren C, et al: Individual placement and support in Sweden—a randomized controlled trial. Nord J Psychiatry 2015; 69:57–66
21.
Reme SE, Monstad K, Fyhn T, et al: A randomized controlled multicenter trial of individual placement and support for patients with moderate-to-severe mental illness. Scand J Work Environ Health 2019; 45:33–41
22.
Luciano A, Metcalfe JD, Bond GR, et al: Hospitalization risk before and after employment among adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. Psychiatr Serv 2016; 67:1131–1138
23.
Joensuu M, Mattila-Holappa P, Ahola K, et al: Predictors of employment in young adults with psychiatric work disability. Early Interv Psychiatry 2019; 13:1083–1089
24.
Hakulinen C, Elovainio M, Arffman M, et al: Mental disorders and long-term labour market outcomes: nationwide cohort study of 2 055 720 individuals. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2019; 140:371–381
25.
Drake RE, Bond GR, Thornicroft G, et al: Mental health disability: an international perspective. J Disabil Policy Stud 2012; 23:110–120
26.
Mäkikyrö T, Isohanni M, Moring J, et al: Accuracy of register-based schizophrenia diagnoses in a genetic study. Eur Psychiatry 1998; 13:57–62
27.
Kieseppä T, Partonen T, Kaprio J, et al: Accuracy of register- and record-based bipolar I disorder diagnoses in Finland; a study of twins. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2000; 12:106–109
28.
Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers—A Synthesis of Findings Across OECD Countries. Paris, OECD, 2010
29.
Böheim R, Leoni T: Sickness and disability policies: reform paths in OECD countries between 1990 and 2014. Int J Soc Welf 2018; 27:168–185
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 13 May 2019
Revision received: 14 August 2019
Accepted: 29 August 2019
Published online: 14 November 2019
Published in print: March 01, 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Suokas received a lecture fee from Lundbeck. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant 310591 to Dr. Hakulinen) and Palkansaajasäätiö.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).