Cochrane · systematic review · CD001087
Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses
Murphy, SM, Irving, CB, Adams, CE, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 50%Moderate 2 · 33.3%High 1 · 16.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyCRISIS INTERVENTION compared with STANDARD CARE for people with severe mental illnesses
Population: patients with people with severe mental illnesses
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state Global Assessment Scale (GAS) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 142 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental state ‐ general Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 248 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Patient Satisfaction Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ‐8) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 137 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of Life Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 226 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Burden on family Numbers of families stating that overall burden is great CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | RR 0.34 [0.2, 0.59] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital use Repeat admissions excluding index admission CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | RR 0.75 [0.5, 1.13] | 1 study · 369 participants | High |
CRISIS INTERVENTION compared to STANDARD CARE for people with severe mental illnesses
Population: patients with people with severe mental illnesses
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Global state Global Assessment Scale (GAS) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 142 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mental state ‐ general Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 248 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Patient Satisfaction Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ‐8) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 137 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of Life Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA) CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 226 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Burden on family Numbers of families stating that overall burden is great CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | RR 0.34 [0.2, 0.59] | 1 study · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital use Repeat admissions excluding index admission CRISIS INTERVENTION vs STANDARD CARE | RR 0.62 [0.51, 0.76] | 1 study · 258 participants | High |