Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services

  1. Veronica Pitt1,
  2. Dianne Lowe2,*,
  3. Sophie Hill3,
  4. Megan Prictor4,
  5. Sarah E Hetrick5,
  6. Rebecca Ryan3,
  7. Lynda Berends6

Editorial Group: Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group

Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 14 MAR 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004807.pub2


How to Cite

Pitt V, Lowe D, Hill S, Prictor M, Hetrick SE, Ryan R, Berends L. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004807. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004807.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  2. 2

    Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe University, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

  3. 3

    La Trobe University, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

  4. 4

    Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe University, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

  5. 5

    University of Melbourne, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  6. 6

    Turning Point Alcohol & Drug Centre, Fitzroy, VIC, Australia

*Dianne Lowe, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia. d.lowe@latrobe.edu.au.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 28 MAR 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Graphical representation of comparisons 1 and 2
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 1 Quality of life: Life satisfaction subscale (subjective).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 2 Function: Daily activities subscale (subjective).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 3 Social: Social relations subscale (subjective).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 4 Symptoms.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 5 Depression.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 6 Satisfaction.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 7 Client manager relationship.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 8 Use of mental health services in 12 months.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 9 Attrition.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 10 Service provision: Caseload/personnel.
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 11 Service provision: Time allocation.
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 12 Service provision: Location of services.
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 13 Service provision: Case manager tasks.
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 14 Crisis/emergency service.
[Analysis 1.15]
Analysis 1.15. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 15 Hospital admissions.
[Analysis 1.16]
Analysis 1.16. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 16 Length of stay.
[Analysis 1.17]
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 Consumer-provider versus professional staff, Outcome 17 Professional's attitude: client manager relationship.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 1 Function.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 2 Social.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 3 Satisfaction.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 4 Use of mental health services: attendance at clinic appointments.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 5 Attrition.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 6 Any hospital admissions.
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 7 Number of hospital admissions.
[Analysis 2.8]
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 8 Length of hospital stay.
[Analysis 2.9]
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Consumer-provider as adjunct versus usual care alone, Outcome 9 Professionals' attitude: client needs met.