for the main comparison.

Personalised care planning compared with usual care
Patient or population: Adult patients with long‐term health conditions Settings: All settings Intervention: Personalised care planning Comparison: Usual care or enhanced usual care
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative effect sizes* (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Usual care (control) vs personalised care planning (intervention)
Physical health: blood glucose (HbA1c) Follow‐up: 6 to 12 months	The mean difference in blood glucose was 0.24% lower (better) in the intervention groups than in the control groups (95% CI 0.35 to 0.14 lower)	1916 (9 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (variation in intervention types led to significant heterogeneity and risk of bias was unclear)
Physical health: systolic blood pressure Follow‐up: 6 to 12 months	The mean difference in systolic blood pressure was 2.64 mm/Hg lower (better) in the intervention groups than in the control groups (95% CI 4.47 to 0.82 lower)	1200 (6 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (variation in intervention types led to significant heterogeneity and risk of bias was unclear)
Physical health: cholesterol (LDL‐C) Follow‐up: 6 to 12 months	The standardised mean difference in LDL cholesterol did not differ between the intervention and control groups: 0.01 standard deviations (95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.11)	1545 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (results were inconsistent)
Psychological health: depression (PHQ‐9, SCL‐20, Beck Depression Inventory, CES‐D) Follow‐up: 1.5 to 12 months	The standardised mean difference in depression scores was 0.36 standard deviations lower (better) in the intervention groups than in the control groups (95% CI 0.52 to 0.20 lower), a small effect in favour of personalised care planning.	599 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (multiple outcome measures)	In addition, 3 out of 4 studies that used conceptually different measures of psychological outcomes (and so could not be pooled) reported better outcomes for the intervention groups than the control groups. The remaining study was too small to detect an effect.
Subjective health status: condition‐specific (PAID‐2, Illness Intrusiveness, AQLQ) Follow‐up: 12 months	The standardised mean difference in condition‐specific health status scores did not differ between the intervention and control groups: ‐0.01 standard deviations (95% CI ‐0.11 to 0.10)	1330 (4 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (variation in intervention types led to significant heterogeneity)	Three studies that measured generic health status (SF‐36 or SF‐12) found no difference between intervention and control groups: physical component score SMD 0.16 (95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.38); mental component score SMD 0.07 (95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.28).
Self‐management capabilities: self efficacy (Stanford, SUPPH, PCDS) Follow‐up: 1.5 to 12 months	The standardised mean difference in self‐efficacy scores was 0.25 standard deviations higher (better) in the intervention groups than in the control groups (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43 higher), a small effect in favour of personalised care planning.	471 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate (variation in intervention types led to significant heterogeneity and risk of bias was unclear)	Mixed effects were found in 5 studies that measured other attributes that contribute to self‐management capabilities. We also found a positive effect on performance of self‐care activities associated with personalised care planning, SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).
Harms associated with personalised care planning				Only 1 study reported any adverse events (hospitalisation and deaths), but there were no differences between intervention and usual‐care groups and no reason to assume that these were due to the intervention.
* CI: Confidence interval
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.