Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 1 Death: 1. Any cause.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 1 Death: 1. Any cause.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 2 Death: 2. By cause.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 2 Death: 2. By cause.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 3 Harm to self or others.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 3 Harm to self or others.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 4 Hospital use: 1. Unable to keep to initial trial protocol as regards admission.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 4 Hospital use: 1. Unable to keep to initial trial protocol as regards admission.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 5 Hospital use: 2. Unable to avoid repeat admissions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 5 Hospital use: 2. Unable to avoid repeat admissions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Interventions

Mean

SD

N

Notes

6 ‐ 12 months

Fenton 1979

Crisis/home group

2.1

3.4

76

Difference favouring home group (two tailed t‐test, p=0.005)

Fenton 1979

Standard care group

6.3

12.3

79

by 12 months

Fenton 1979

Crisis/home group

16.5

11.7

76

No difference between the groups (two tailed t test p>0.05)

Fenton 1979

Standard care group

13.0

19.2

79

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 6 Hospital use: 3. Home or outpatient visits (data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 7 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide infomation): 1. Patients.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 7 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide infomation): 1. Patients.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 8 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide information) 2. Relatives.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 8 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide information) 2. Relatives.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 9 Global state: 1. GAS (endpoint score, range 1‐100, low = poor) (loss in some cases is greater than 30%).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 9 Global state: 1. GAS (endpoint score, range 1‐100, low = poor) (loss in some cases is greater than 30%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 10 Global state: 2. SAS (endpoint score, high=poor) (loss in some cases in greater than 30%).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 10 Global state: 2. SAS (endpoint score, high=poor) (loss in some cases in greater than 30%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 11 Global state: 3. GAS scale change data by 3 months (+ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 11 Global state: 3. GAS scale change data by 3 months (+ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 12 Global state: 4. SAS change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 12 Global state: 4. SAS change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 13 Mental state ‐ general: 1. Unwell by 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 13 Mental state ‐ general: 1. Unwell by 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 14 Mental state ‐ general: 2. BPRS (endpoint score, range 24‐168, high=poor) (loss in standard group >30%).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 14 Mental state ‐ general: 2. BPRS (endpoint score, range 24‐168, high=poor) (loss in standard group >30%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 15 Mental state ‐ general: 3. PEF (endpoint score, range 0‐5, high=poor) (loss is greater than 30%).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 15 Mental state ‐ general: 3. PEF (endpoint score, range 0‐5, high=poor) (loss is greater than 30%).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Interventions

Mean

SD

N

Notes

by 6 months

Muijen 1992

Crisis/home care group

13.5

11.5

67

No difference between groups (ANCOVA, p = not reported).

Muijen 1992

Standard care group

16.5

12.1

61

by 12 months

Muijen 1992

Crisis/home care group

11.8

12.0

64

No difference between groups (ANCOVA, p = not reported).

Muijen 1992

Standard care group

13.8

14.4

64

by 20 months

Muijen 1992

Crisis/home care group

8.2

9.3

72

Result not statistically significant (p=0.09)

Muijen 1992

Standard care group

12.2

15.0

70

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 16 Mental state ‐ general: 4. PSE (endpoint score, high score = poor, data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 17 Mental state ‐ general: 5. BPRS scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 17 Mental state ‐ general: 5. BPRS scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 18 Mental state ‐ general: 6. PSE scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed)..
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 18 Mental state ‐ general: 6. PSE scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed)..

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 19 Mental state ‐ specific: 1. Unsociable (reported by relatives).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 19 Mental state ‐ specific: 1. Unsociable (reported by relatives).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 20 Mental state ‐ specific: 2. Aggression (reported by relatives).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 20 Mental state ‐ specific: 2. Aggression (reported by relatives).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 21 Mental state ‐ specific: 3. Various problems at 4 months (reported by relatives).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 21 Mental state ‐ specific: 3. Various problems at 4 months (reported by relatives).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 22 Burden ‐ family: 1. Disruption to daily routine.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 22 Burden ‐ family: 1. Disruption to daily routine.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 23 Burden ‐ family: 2. Disruption to social life.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 23 Burden ‐ family: 2. Disruption to social life.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 24 Burden ‐ family: 3. Financial strain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 24 Burden ‐ family: 3. Financial strain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 25 Burden ‐ family: 4. Physical illness due to patient's illness.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 25 Burden ‐ family: 4. Physical illness due to patient's illness.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 26 Burden ‐ family: 5. Overall burden is great.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 26 Burden ‐ family: 5. Overall burden is great.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 27 Burden ‐ community: 1. Not employed by 20 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 27 Burden ‐ community: 1. Not employed by 20 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 28 Burden ‐ community: 2. Various outcomes by 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 28 Burden ‐ community: 2. Various outcomes by 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 29 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 1. Various outcomes by 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 29 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 1. Various outcomes by 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 30 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 2. Patient not satisitfied with care: Satisfaction Scale (endpoint score, range 0 ‐32,.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 30 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 2. Patient not satisitfied with care: Satisfaction Scale (endpoint score, range 0 ‐32,.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 31 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 1. Feels patient is not improved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.31

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 31 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 1. Feels patient is not improved.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 32 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 2. Dissatisfied with treatment received.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.32

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 32 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 2. Dissatisfied with treatment received.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 33 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 3. Would have preferred patient to have received other treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.33

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 33 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 3. Would have preferred patient to have received other treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 34 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 4. Various outcomes by 12 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.34

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 34 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 4. Various outcomes by 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Study

Interventions

Mean

SD

N

Notes

total cost for trial period ‐ as assessed by researchers

Fenton 1979

Crisis/home care group

$1980

$1850

79

Difference favouring home group stated (2 tailed t‐test p<0.001)

Fenton 1979

Standard care group

$3250

$2410

76

total cost for trial period ‐ as assessed by finance department

Fenton 1979

Crisis/home care group

$3230

$5120

79

Difference favouring home group (2 tailed t‐test p=0.001)

Fenton 1979

Standard care group

$6750

$7180

76

per week

Muijen 1992

Crisis/home care group

£196

£97

55

Over 20 month trial period

Muijen 1992

Standard care group

£358

£241

48

Difference favouring home group (p=0.000)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.35

Comparison 1 HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE', Outcome 35 Economic cost per patient (data likely to be skewed).

Ir a la figura de la revisión
Table 1. Suggestions for trial design

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Notes

Allocation: randomised, with sequence generation and concealment of allocation clearly described.
Blindness: single.
Duration: 12 months at least.
Raters: independent.

Diagnosis: schizophrenia or related psychoses.
N=300.*
History: in need of psychiatric admission.
Sex: both.
Age: any.

1. Home care: assertive community treatment + crisis team, multidisciplinary, 24 hr service, drug treatment, psychotherapy, instruction in living skills. N=150.
2. Home care: assertive community treatment without crisis team. N=150.

Death.
Serious harm to self and others.
Service outcomes: hospital admission, readmissions.
Leaving the study early.
Global and mental state (CGI, binary outcome).**
Satisfaction: family burden, patient satisfaction, relative satisfaction, staff burden (binary data)
Economic data.

* Size of study with sufficient power to highlight about a 10% difference between groups for primary outcome.
** Primary outcome.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Suggestions for trial design
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE'

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death: 1. Any cause Show forest plot

4

601

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.30, 1.88]

2 Death: 2. By cause Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 natural causes

4

601

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.23, 3.09]

2.2 suicide or death in suspicious circumstances

4

601

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.24, 2.32]

3 Harm to self or others Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 attempted suicide

2

250

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.87, 2.03]

3.2 homicide

1

189

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.16 [0.13, 76.63]

4 Hospital use: 1. Unable to keep to initial trial protocol as regards admission Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 by 6 months

3

427

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

61.09 [12.58, 296.63]

4.2 by 12 months

5

713

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

65.16 [19.04, 223.06]

4.3 by 20 months

2

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

94.80 [13.90, 646.37]

4.4 by 24 months

1

118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

39.77 [2.47, 639.78]

5 Hospital use: 2. Unable to avoid repeat admissions Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 by 12 months

3

465

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.97]

5.2 by 20 months

1

188

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.75, 1.60]

6 Hospital use: 3. Home or outpatient visits (data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

6.1 6 ‐ 12 months

Other data

No numeric data

6.2 by 12 months

Other data

No numeric data

7 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide infomation): 1. Patients Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 by 3 months

1

162

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.45, 1.25]

7.2 by 6 months

4

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.53, 0.94]

7.3 by 12 months

4

594

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.56, 0.98]

7.4 by 20 months

3

475

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.57, 1.08]

8 Leaving the study early (unwilling or unable to provide information) 2. Relatives Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 total in study

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.52, 2.28]

8.2 subgroup of those living with patient

1

76

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.43, 1.17]

9 Global state: 1. GAS (endpoint score, range 1‐100, low = poor) (loss in some cases is greater than 30%) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 by 6 months

1

129

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.10 [‐0.86, 11.06]

9.2 by 12 months

1

131

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.5 [‐3.15, 10.15]

9.3 by 20 months

1

142

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.70 [‐0.26, 11.66]

10 Global state: 2. SAS (endpoint score, high=poor) (loss in some cases in greater than 30%) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 by 6 months

1

130

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.75, 0.35]

10.2 by 12 months

1

120

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.85, 0.25]

10.3 by 20 months

1

139

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.15, ‐0.05]

11 Global state: 3. GAS scale change data by 3 months (+ve change=good, data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

1

129

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.20 [‐1.19, 11.59]

12 Global state: 4. SAS change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

1

127

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.31, 0.13]

13 Mental state ‐ general: 1. Unwell by 12 months Show forest plot

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.40, 1.07]

14 Mental state ‐ general: 2. BPRS (endpoint score, range 24‐168, high=poor) (loss in standard group >30%) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 by 6 months

1

129

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.10 [‐6.40, 2.20]

14.2 by 12 months

1

131

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐6.03, 2.03]

14.3 by 20 months

1

142

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.5 [‐8.68, ‐0.32]

15 Mental state ‐ general: 3. PEF (endpoint score, range 0‐5, high=poor) (loss is greater than 30%) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 by 3 months

1

118

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.22, 0.62]

15.2 by 6 months

1

111

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.42, 0.62]

15.3 by 12 months

1

97

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐0.84, 0.04]

15.4 by 20 months

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.47, 0.67]

16 Mental state ‐ general: 4. PSE (endpoint score, high score = poor, data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

16.1 by 6 months

Other data

No numeric data

16.2 by 12 months

Other data

No numeric data

16.3 by 20 months

Other data

No numeric data

17 Mental state ‐ general: 5. BPRS scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

1

129

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.5 [‐8.92, 1.92]

18 Mental state ‐ general: 6. PSE scale change data by 3 months (‐ve change=good, data likely to be skewed). Show forest plot

1

129

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.70 [‐7.69, 2.29]

19 Mental state ‐ specific: 1. Unsociable (reported by relatives) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

19.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.66, 1.12]

19.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.30, 0.64]

20 Mental state ‐ specific: 2. Aggression (reported by relatives) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.72, 1.31]

20.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.7 [0.39, 1.25]

21 Mental state ‐ specific: 3. Various problems at 4 months (reported by relatives) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 agitation

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.36, 0.95]

21.2 depression

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [0.57, 1.13]

21.3 disorientation

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.28, 0.79]

21.4 psychotic behaviour

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.30, 1.11]

21.5 substance abuse

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.33, 1.36]

21.6 withdrawl

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.48, 1.07]

22 Burden ‐ family: 1. Disruption to daily routine Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1 by 3 months

2

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.58, 0.96]

22.2 by 6 months

2

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.52, 0.92]

23 Burden ‐ family: 2. Disruption to social life Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.1 by 3 months

2

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.52, 0.87]

23.2 by 6 months

2

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.57, 0.94]

24 Burden ‐ family: 3. Financial strain Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

24.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.52, 1.10]

24.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.53, 1.33]

25 Burden ‐ family: 4. Physical illness due to patient's illness Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.1 by 3 months

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.65, 0.95]

25.2 by 6 months

1

100

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.55, 0.92]

26 Burden ‐ family: 5. Overall burden is great Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

26.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.41, 0.80]

26.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.20, 0.59]

27 Burden ‐ community: 1. Not employed by 20 months Show forest plot

1

189

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.85, 1.12]

28 Burden ‐ community: 2. Various outcomes by 12 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

28.1 at least one arrest

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.46, 1.12]

28.2 at least one use of emergency services

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.43, 1.54]

29 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 1. Various outcomes by 12 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

29.1 feels unimproved

1

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.31, 0.74]

29.2 dissatisfied with treatment received

1

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.50, 0.88]

29.3 prefered to get other treatment

1

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.27, 0.77]

29.4 feels less able to cope

1

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.21, 0.62]

29.5 feels will need more help outside working hours in the future

1

119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.48 [0.88, 2.48]

30 Satisfaction ‐ patient: 2. Patient not satisitfied with care: Satisfaction Scale (endpoint score, range 0 ‐32, Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

30.1 by 6 months

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.10 [3.16, 7.04]

30.2 by 12 months

1

121

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.80 [3.11, 6.49]

30.3 by 20 months

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.40 [3.91, 6.89]

31 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 1. Feels patient is not improved Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

31.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.60, 1.04]

31.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.53, 0.97]

32 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 2. Dissatisfied with treatment received Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

32.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.44, 0.89]

32.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.42, 0.78]

32.3 by 12 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.29, 0.72]

33 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 3. Would have preferred patient to have received other treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

33.1 by 3 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.63, 2.57]

33.2 by 6 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.49, 2.54]

33.3 by 12 months

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.43, 1.54]

34 Satisfaction ‐ relatives: 4. Various outcomes by 12 months Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

34.1 feel themselves less able to cope

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.42, 0.78]

34.2 feel themsleves to need more help outside working hours in the future

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.91, 1.60]

35 Economic cost per patient (data likely to be skewed) Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

35.1 total cost for trial period ‐ as assessed by researchers

Other data

No numeric data

35.2 total cost for trial period ‐ as assessed by finance department

Other data

No numeric data

35.3 per week

Other data

No numeric data
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. HOME‐BASED CARE + INITIAL CRISIS INTERVENTION vs 'STANDARD CARE'
Ir a la tabla de la revisión