Patient‐initiated appointment systems vs consultant‐led appointment systems: Patient outcomes: depression (HADS)a 9–24 months
Patient‐initiated appointment systems showed no clear difference in patient outcomes: depression (HADS)a 9–24 months compared with consultant‐led appointment systems (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient‐initiated appointment systems vs consultant‐led appointment systems Patient outcomes: depression (HADS)a 9–24 months · adults with a chronic or recurrent condition Patient‐initiated appointment systems showed no clear difference in patient outcomes: depression (HADS)a 9–24 months compared with consultant‐led appointment systems (low certainty). Patient‐initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.79 [0.51, 1.23] | 6 studies · 1835 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient‐initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care 2020 · 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.