Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 4;2019(4):CD010880. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010880.pub2

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Peer support plus standard care versus standard care for people with schizophrenia or similar serious mental illness.

Peer support + standard care vs standard care for people with schizophrenia or similar serious mental illness
Patient or population: people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness
Settings: inpatients and outpatients
Intervention: peer support + standard care vs standard care
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control Peer‐support vsstandard care
Service use: hospital admission – medium term
Follow‐up: 5 months
Study population RR 0.44 
 (0.11 to 1.75) 19
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 Very lowa,b,c
500 per 1000 220 per 1000
 (55 to 875)
Moderate
500 per 1000 220 per 1000
 (55 to 875)
Service use: days in hospital – medium term
Follow‐up: 5 months
See comments See comments See comments See comments Data were skewed and could not be use in analyses. See Analysis 1.2.
Global state: relapse See comments See comments See comments See comments See comments No data.
Global state: clinically important change in global state See comments See comments See comments See comments See comments No data
Peer outcomes: clinically important change in quality of life for service user and peer supporter See comments See comments See comments See comments No study reported data for clinically important change in quality of life. 4 studies measured quality of life in the medium term by using different scales; see Analysis 1.37.
Adverse events: all cause – long term
Follow‐up: 40 weeks
Study population RR 1.52 
 (0.43 to 5.31) 555
 (1 study) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 Very lowa,b,c
14 per 1000 22 per 1000
 (6 to 76)
Moderate
14 per 1000 21 per 1000
 (6 to 74)
Economic: indirect costs (cost to society) See comments See comments See comments See comments See comments No useable data.
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aRisk of bias downgraded one level due to high risk of performance and detection bias.
 bIndirectness downgraded one level due to participants having mental illnesses other than schizophrenia.
 cImprecision downgraded one level due to very small sample size or low incidence of events.