Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

User-held personalised information for routine care of people with severe mental illness

  1. Simone Farrelly1,*,
  2. Gill E Brown2,
  3. Clare Flach3,
  4. Elizabeth Barley4,
  5. Richard Laugharne5,
  6. Claire Henderson6

Editorial Group: Cochrane Schizophrenia Group

Published Online: 5 OCT 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 2 AUG 2011

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001711.pub2


How to Cite

Farrelly S, Brown GE, Flach C, Barley E, Laugharne R, Henderson C. User-held personalised information for routine care of people with severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD001711. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001711.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Institute of Psychiatry, Health Service and Population Research Department, London, UK

  2. 2

    Edge Hill University, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

  3. 3

    University of Manchester, Biostatistics, Health Sciences-Methodology, Manchester, UK

  4. 4

    King's College London, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK

  5. 5

    Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Mental Health Research Group, Exeter, UK

  6. 6

    King's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK

*Simone Farrelly, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigney Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. simone.farrelly@kcl.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 5 OCT 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1. Psychiatric hospital admission: 1. general admission.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 1 Psychiatric hospital admission: 1. Psychiatric admission.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 2 Psychiatric hospital admission: 2a. Days in hospital (compulsory only, by range of days).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 3 Psychiatric hospital admission: 2b. Days in hospital (skewed data).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 4 Mental state: Scores (high=worse, skewed data).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 5 Satisfaction: Scores (high=better).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 6 Service use.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 7 Economic costs of care (£ - client service receipt inventory, skew).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 User-held information versus standard information, Outcome 8 Sensitivity analysis: Psychiatric hospital admission: adjusting for clustering.