Question · asked by 1 review
Collaborative care vs usual care: Mental state: clinically important change in mental state
- Population
- severe mental illness
- Intervention
- Collaborative care
- Comparison
- usual care
- Outcome
- Mental state: clinically important change in mental state
Summary of findings table ‐ Collaborative care showed no clear difference in mental state: clinically important change (binary) compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings table ‐ Collaborative care vs usual care Mental state: clinically important change (binary) · severe mental illness Summary of findings table ‐ Collaborative care showed no clear difference in mental state: clinically important change (binary) compared with usual care (low certainty). Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.99 [0.77, 1.28] | 1 study · 253 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.