Summary of findings for the main comparison. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) FOR PROMPTING/SUPPORT + STANDARD CARE compared with STANDARD CARE for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness.
| INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) FOR PROMPTING/SUPPORT + STANDARD CARE compared with STANDARD CARE for treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with treatment compliance for people with serious mental illness Settings: Mental health outpatient care Intervention: ICT FOR PROMPTING / SUPPORT + STANDARD CARE Comparison: 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 | |||||
| STANDARD CARE | ICT FOR PROMPTING / SUPPORT + STANDARD CARE | |||||
| Compliance with medication: Would stop taking medication Morisky Green Adherence Questionnaire (MAQ) Follow‐up: 6 months | Low1 | RR 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29) | 320 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | ||
| 300 per 1000 | 336 per 1000 (285 to 393) | |||||
| Moderate1 | ||||||
| 600 per 1000 | 672 per 1000 (570 to 786) | |||||
| High1 | ||||||
| 900 per 1000 | 1000 per 1000 (855 to 1000) | |||||
| Service utilisation ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Nature of measure is unclear. |
| Adverse effects/events | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | No study reported this outcome. |
| Mental state: Average change in specific symptom scores: depressive scores degree of change CGI‐SCH‐DC Follow‐up: 6 months | The mean mental state: average change in specific symptom scores: depressive scores degree of change in the intervention groups was 0 higher (0.28 lower to 0.28 higher) | 251 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3 | |||
| Acceptability (of intervention): Leaving the studies early – any reason Loss to follow‐up or leaving the study early | Study population | RR 1.46 (0.7 to 3.05) | 347 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low4 | Length of follow‐up varies between 6 to18 months. | |
| 50 per 1000 | 73 per 1000 (35 to 152) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 94 per 1000 | 137 per 1000 (66 to 287) | |||||
| Quality of life: Average change Euroquol 5D, visual analogue scale Follow‐up: 6 months | The mean quality of life: average change in the intervention groups was 0.5 higher (0.19 to 0.81 higher) | 251 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate5 | |||
| Costs | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 0 (0) | See comment | No study reported this outcome. |
| *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. | ||||||
1 Unclear data: these analyses were performed with excluded sub‐sample. 2 Risk of bias: 22% of participants were excluded from the analysis (analyses performed with excluded sub‐sample); results of MAQ written emphasising significantly greater results. 3 Risk of bias: 22% of participants were excluded from the analysis. 4 Risk of bias: unclear blinding; incomplete outcome data; selective reporting. 5 Risk of bias: 22% of participants were excluded from the analysis. The results based on the MANSA were not used in SoF; the results might change the estimate if usable.