Reynolds 2004.
Methods | Allocation: randomised Blindness: non‐blinded Study duration: 5 months Location: single centre Design: parallel Setting: discharged inpatients Country: UK Consent: written |
|
Participants | Diagnosis: range of mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression N = 25 History: not stated Sex: not stated Age: not stated Exclusion criteria: people with dementia, people who were discharged from hospital before having had the opportunity to develop a relationship with their transitional nurse |
|
Interventions | Group 1: peer‐support + standard care (n = 11). Content: peer support, which was assistance from former patients who provide friendship, understanding and encouragement; and overlap of inpatient and community staff in which the inpatient staff continue to work with the discharged patient until a working relationship was established with a community care provider. Delivered by: previous service user of the mental health system. Frequency: type and intensity of assistance provided by the peer supporter varied according to individual preference Treatment duration: 5 months. Group 2: standard care (n = 14). Content: usual treatment, comprised the standard discharge arrangements normally provided to patients and included referral to locality‐based community psychiatric nurses. Treatment duration: 5 months. |
|
Outcomes | Service use: hospital admission Leaving study early Functioning: general, physical, societal role, interpersonal functioning, cognitive Peer outcomes: quality of life for participant and peer supporter Unable to use Mental state: aggressiveness, anxiety, attention problems, depression, emotional withdrawal, family problems, hyperaffect, interpersonal problems, resistiveness, suicide feelings, thought process difficulties (skewed data) Functioning: daily living (skewed data) |
|
Notes | Funding source: Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Executive. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Subjects were randomly assigned to groups by a computerized random number facility." Comment: adequate sequence generation. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: author did not describe allocation concealment. Insufficient information to make judgement. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "The researchers were not blinded to the intervention status of participants." Comment: personnel were not blinded. No information for blinding of participants. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "The researchers were not blinded to the intervention status of participants." Comment: the blinding of assessors was not ensured. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "A small number of patients were lost to study (control n= 3; experimental n=3) and consequently data on 19 subjects were included in the final analysis." Comment: low attrition rate, rates were balanced in groups. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: study protocol not available. Insufficient information to make judgement. |
Other bias | Low risk | None noted. |