CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT vs usual care: Service use: Number of participants hospitalised
Contingency management may leads to lower service use*: Number hospitalised compared with standard care (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Contingency management vs standard care Service use*: Number hospitalised · people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse Contingency management may leads to lower service use*: Number hospitalised compared with standard care (low certainty). Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.21 [0.05, 0.93] | 1 study · 176 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse 2019 · 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.