Cochrane · systematic review · CD012472
Patient‐mediated interventions to improve professional practice
Fønhus, MS, Dalsbø, TK, Johansen, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Effective Practice and Organisation of CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
28
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
15
Included studies
NR
No studies 15 · 53.6%Ungraded 1 · 3.6%Very low 4 · 14.3%Low 6 · 21.4%Moderate 2 · 7.1%High 0 · 0%
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
Patient‐reported health information interventions versus comparisons to improve professional performance
Population: general patient population, "at risk" patient population and patient population with a specific condition or disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to recommended clinical practice (0‐3 months Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.59 [1.41, 1.81] | 4 studies · 3865 participants | Moderate |
Desirable patient health outcomes (0‐3 months Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.62 [0.95, 2.76] | 1 study · 79 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Undesirable patient health outcomes Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction Number of satisfied patients (0‐3 months Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 2.45 [1.27, 4.74] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Patient satisfaction The degree of satisfaction (unknown scale, but higher score means higher degree of satisfaction) (0‐3 months Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 79 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource use (0‐3 months Patient‐reported health information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | 3 participants | Ungraded |
Patient information interventions versus comparisons to improve professional performance
Population: general patient population, "at risk" patient population and patient population with a specific condition or disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to recommended clinical practice (0‐12 months Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.6 [1.2, 2.13] | 11 studies · 3502 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Desirable patient health outcomes (3‐12 months Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 0.99 [0.79, 1.24] | 1 study · 261 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Undesirable patient health outcomes (0‐12 months Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 0.94 [0.53, 1.67] | 2 studies · 246 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Patient satisfaction Number of satisfied patients (0‐3 months Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.03 [0.93, 1.13] | 1 study · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Patient satisfaction The degree of satisfaction (on a 1‐10 scale where 10 is highest degree of satisfaction) (0‐3 months Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource use Patient information interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient education interventions versus comparisons to improve professional performance
Population: general patient population, "at risk" patient population and patient population with a specific condition or disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to recommended clinical practice (0‐3 months Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.31 [1.12, 1.54] | 4 studies · 1029 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Desirable patient health outcomes (0‐3 months Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 1.09 [0.96, 1.23] | 1 study · 500 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Undesirable patient health outcomes Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction Number of satisfied patients Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction The degree of satisfaction Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource use Patient education interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient decision aid interventions versus comparisons to improve professional performance
Population: patient population with a specific condition or disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to recommended clinical practice (12 months Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | RR 0.86 [0.65, 1.15] | 1 study · 353 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Desirable patient health outcomes Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Undesirable patient health outcomes Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction Number of satisfied patients Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Patient satisfaction The degree of satisfaction (unknown scale, but higher score means higher degree of satisfaction) Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Resource use Patient decision aid interventions vs comparisons to improve professional performance | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |