Moore 1978.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised trial, USA | |
| Participants | 212 adults attending family practices. | |
| Interventions | A note was attached to the patient's visit note indicating depression status as assessed with SDS. Intervention features Single simple feedback (one PROM at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: Zung self‐rating depression scale (SDS) Constructs measured: Symptoms Instrument categories/domains: Domain/Disease specific (mental health) Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) How administered: Self‐administered and interviewer‐administered (patients unable to complete the self‐rating form were interviewed using the interviewer completed form) Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance |
|
| Outcomes | Main outcome: recognition of depression | |
| Notes | No funding was reported for this study. The study period was not reported. Conflicts of interest were not reported. |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Paper states quote:"For randomisation an on‐line random number generator was utilised." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Discrete labelling of patient files. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Due to nature of intervention not possible to blind patients and personnel. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Due to nature of the intervention blinding of outcomes not possible: PROM used for feedback also used to assess outcome, patients were aware they received the intervention. |
| Baseline outcome measurements similar | Low risk | None apparent |
| Baseline characteristics similar | Low risk | T‐tests used to analyse demographics for differences ‐ no significance found. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | High rates of attrition, not adequately addressed |
| Was study protected against contamination | Low risk | All the clients had numbered files so did not know which group they were allocated |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear whether selective reporting took place |