Intervention not reported
Pain control · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with other musculoskeletal conditions
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low
Intervention not reported
Work absence · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with other musculoskeletal conditions
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Medication2 · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis
Primary care physician alerting system showed no clear difference in medication2 compared with primary care physician alerting system and a patient‐directed… (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Quality of life · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with other musculoskeletal conditions
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Economic outcomes Health service costs (including prescribing costs) Cost effectiveness · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with other musculoskeletal conditions
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Health professional (GP) behaviour‐related outcomes Bone Mineral Density (BMD) testing Osteoporosis medication (appropriate prescribing) · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Patient outcomes Fragility fractures Hospitalisation · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Economic outcomes Health service costs (including prescribing costs) Cost effectiveness · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Contraceptive use (modern method) · women with need for family planning (FP)
The intervention probably leads to higher contraceptive use (modern method) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 2.48 [1.31, 4.72]
335 participants
Moderate
Intervention not reported
Contraceptive use: more effective method · women with need for family planning (FP)
The intervention probably leads to higher contraceptive use: more effective method (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 1.81 [1.24, 2.63]
18 participants
Moderate
Intervention not reported
Contraceptive use: highly effective method · women with need for family planning (FP)
The intervention leads to higher contraceptive use: highly effective method (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 2.25 [1.24, 4.1]
18 participants
High
Intervention not reported
Condom use: unprotected last sex · women with need for family planning (FP)
The intervention leads to lower condom use: unprotected last sex (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 0.23 [0.14, 0.4]
18 participants
High
Intervention not reported
Condom use: any unprotected sex in past 2 weeks · women with need for family planning (FP)
The intervention leads to lower condom use: any unprotected sex in past 2 weeks (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 0.56 [0.32, 0.99]
18 participants
High
Intervention not reported
Pregnancy incidence, undesired · women with need for family planning (FP)
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
939 participants
Moderate
Intervention not reported
Tobacco use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The intervention showed no clear difference in tobacco use (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Alcohol use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The intervention showed no clear difference in alcohol use (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Cannabis use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The intervention showed no clear difference in cannabis use (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Illicit drug use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Antisocial behaviour · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The intervention showed no clear difference in antisocial behaviour (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Sexual risk behaviour · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years
The intervention showed no clear difference in sexual risk behaviour (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review