PROMPT TYPE vs NO PROMPT: Did not attend appointment ‐ combination of telephone and text‐based prompts
It is very uncertain whether PROMPT TYPE changes did not attend appointment ‐ combination of telephone and text‐based… compared with NO PROMPT (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
PROMPT TYPE vs NO PROMPT Did not attend appointment ‐ combination of telephone and text‐based prompts · patients with serious mental illness It is very uncertain whether PROMPT TYPE changes did not attend appointment ‐ combination of telephone and text‐based… compared with NO PROMPT (very low certainty). Prompts to encourage appointment attendance for people with serious mental illness (2001) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.7 [0.42, 1.17] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prompts to encourage appointment attendance for people with serious mental illness 2001 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.