for the main comparison.

Mental health patients compared with mental health staff used as interviewers of mental health patients (Clark 1999; Polowczyk 1993).
Patient or population: Mental health patients Settings: Mental health outpatient facilities in Toronto, Canada and Suffolk County New York, USA Intervention: Mental health patient interviewers Comparison: Mental health staff interviewers
Outcomes	Absolute effect	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Satisfaction with mental health services (consumer influence on resource utilisation)	MD ‐ 0.14 (‐0.23 to ‐ 0.06)	650 (2)	++OO low$	Based on these two trials there is low quality evidence of small differences in satisfaction survey results when consumer interviewers are used instead of staff interviewers.
MD: Mean difference
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 (+++O) 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 (++OO) Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate (+OOO)

$ Serious limitation due to concealment of allocation and blinded assessment of primary outcome(s) not clear. Some uncertainty about directness.