Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.1 Consultation Process.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.1 Consultation Process.

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.2 Satisfaction.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.2 Satisfaction.

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.3 Health Behaviors.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.3 Health Behaviors.

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.4 Health Status.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Funnel plot of comparison: 2 Continuous Outcomes, outcome: 2.4 Health Status.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.1 Consultation Process.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.1 Consultation Process.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.2 Satisfaction.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.2 Satisfaction.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.3 Health Behaviors.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.3 Health Behaviors.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.4 Health Status.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, outcome: 1.4 Health Status.

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 1 Consultation Process.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 1 Consultation Process.

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 2 Satisfaction.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 2 Satisfaction.

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 3 Health Behaviors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 3 Health Behaviors.

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 4 Health Status.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Dichotomous Outcomes, Outcome 4 Health Status.

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 1 Consultation Process.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 1 Consultation Process.

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 2 Satisfaction.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 2 Satisfaction.

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 3 Health Behaviors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 3 Health Behaviors.

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 4 Health Status.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Continuous Outcomes, Outcome 4 Health Status.

Comparison 3 Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training, Outcome 1 Brief Training < 10 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training, Outcome 1 Brief Training < 10 hours.

Comparison 3 Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training, Outcome 2 Extensive training > 18 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training, Outcome 2 Extensive training > 18 hours.

Table 1. Studies excluded completely from meta‐analysis

Study

Type of variable

Reason for Exclusion

 Dichotomous

 

Lewis 1991

Consultation

Need baseline data and ICCa to adjust for clustering

 Continuous

 

Alamo 2002

Consultation

Need ICCa to adjust for clustering

Bieber 2008

Consultation

Health status

Patient satisfaction

Need ICCa for patients clustered within physicians; Need to confirm with authors if physicians were randomized

Brown 2001

Consultation

Health status

Health behaviour

Need ICCa; Need Standard deviations

Chassany 2006

Health status

Health behaviour

Methodological Problem; change scores analyzed instead of post intervention; No ICCa for adjusting for clustering

Fallowfield 2002

Consultation?

Need number of events per doctor or odds for each group reported for table 4 on page 653.  Need standard deviations

Haskard 2008

 

Need standard deviations; Need to reanalyze data because they compared changes within groups

Harmsen 2005

 

Need standard deviation for Table 1. All patients.

Heaven 2006

 

Methodological Problem: no control; two interventions compared to each other;

Krones 2008

Consultation

Health status

Patient satisfaction

Need standard errors or unadjusted standard deviations for table four; Need ICCa

Levinson 1993

Consultation?

Need short program means for pre intervention and also post intervention separate; Reported as a difference which is unusable; Need Standard deviations pre and post

Lewis 1991

Consultation

Health status

Patient satisfaction

Need baseline data and ICCa to adjust for clustering

Longo 2006

Consultation

Health status

Health behaviour

Patient satisfaction

Need ICCa

Margalit 2005

 

Methodologically out; No controls; two interventions

Meland 1996

Patient behaviour?

Need ICCa to adjust for clustering

Moral 2003

Consultation

Need ICCa and standard deviations

Pill 1998

Satisfaction

Health status

Methodological problem: experimental providers were asked to submit a recording which demonstrated the use of the method they  had been taught; Need ICCa; Need actual values post with standard deviations ? not change scores

Putnam 1988

Satisfaction

Health behaviour

Health status

Need standard deviations; Possible contamination

Robbins 1979

Consultation

Need standard deviations pre and post

Smith 1998

Consultation

Satisfaction

Methodological problem: possible contamination stated by authors; need standard deviations for attitudes and knowledge‐answered by residents; Need satisfaction post means and standard deviations for controls and interventions instead of a difference;

Song 2005

Health status

Methodological problem: possible contamination. Change scores are compared

Thom 1999

Satisfaction

Consultation

Need ICCa

a) ICC: Intra‐cluster correlation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Studies excluded completely from meta‐analysis
Table 2. Impact of Interventions ‐ summary of qualitative analysis

Intervention category

Total  studies in category

Studies in which consultation process outcomes favoured intervention /

Total studies assessing consultation process (%)

Studies in which satisfaction outcomes favoured intervention /

Total studies reporting satisfaction (%)

Studies in which patient behaviour outcomes favoured intervention /

Total studies reporting patient behaviour (%)

Studies in which health status outcomes favoured intervention /

Total studies reporting health status (%)

1 (PCC training for providers)

23

16/22 (73%)

6/13 (46%)

1/4 (25%)

5/11 (45%)

2 (PCC for providers plus training or materials for patients)

7

5 /6 (83%)

1/4 (25%)

0/2 (0%)

3/4 (75%)

3 (PCC plus condition‐specific training for providers)

7

2/2 (100%)

2/5 (40%)

4/6 (67%)

2/6 (33%)

4 (PCC plus condition‐specific training for providers, plus training for patients)

6

5/5 (100%)

3/4 (75%)

3/5 (60%)

3/6 (50%)

Total

43

28/35 (80%)

12 /26 (46%)

8/17 (47%)

12/26 (46%)

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Impact of Interventions ‐ summary of qualitative analysis
Table 3. Category A consultation process outcome measures

Study ID

Outcome Category A: Consultation Process

How assessed

Use in analysis

Provider consultation communication behaviour

Alamo 2002

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters.

Used GATHERES‐CP scoring system

Narrative

Alder 2007

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters, shared decision making

Observation from videotapes as measured by the Maastricht History and Advice Checklist‐Revised (MAAS‐R).

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Fallowfield 2002

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters, shared decision making

Medical Interaction Process System (MIPS)

Narrative

Haskard 2008

Physician information giving

Patient report

Narrative

Heaven 2006

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in audio recordings of encounters

Medical Interview Aural Rating Scale (MIARS)

Narrative

Ho 2008

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in observed standardized patients

OSCE scores on observed standardized patient encounter

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Hobma 2006

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters

MAAS Global Questionnaire for Providers.

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Howe 1996

Provider's psychological distress detection rate following training in communication skills among video recordings of own patients

Checklist for video analysis among patients with high scores on General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Joos 1996

Provider elicitation of all patient concerns (previously stated on checklist)  in audio recordings of encounters

Roter Interactional Analysis System (RIAS)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Kinmonth 1998

Quality of communication with provider

Proportion of patients rating maximum quality

Dichotomous

Krones 2008

Shared decision making, patient perception that doctor knows patient

SDM‐Q, Patient Participation Survey

Narrative

Langewitz 1998

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters with standardized patients

Maastricht History and Advice Checklist‐Revised (MAAS‐R)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Levinson 1993

Provider and patient‐centred communication behaviours

 

Change scores: observed from video using RIAS

Narrative

Lewis 1991

Patient‐centered communication style in video recording of actual encounters

 

Percentage and number of statements in encounter by Pantell/Stewart coding method

Narrative

Loh 2007

Consultation time; doctor facilitation of patient involvement

Time in min; Participation surveys: PICS, variation of Man‐Song‐Hing scale

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Longo 2006

Involving patient in decision making

Observation (Provider score on OPTION instrument for patient agreement and involvement)

Narrative

Margalit 2005

Provider’s biopsychosocial knowledge, intentions, patient‐centred attitudes;

Physician detection of patient distress

Physician self‐report;  Patient report (physician detection of patient distress)

Narrative

Merckaert 2008

Patient‐centered communication style in audio recording of simulated and actual encounters

 

Audio rating: French translation of “Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual”;  

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Moral 2003

Consultation behaviour in standardized patient encounters

Rated by GATHA‐RES (instrument/rating scale designed by authors)

Narrative

Pill 1998

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in audiotaped encounters.

Investigator developed coding

Narrative

Putnam 1988

Patient and provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in audiotaped encounters

Coded verbal response modes (VRMs)

Narrative

Robbins 1979

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video taped encounters; empathy scores

Coded responses using Kagan, Brockway, Curkhuff scales; Affect Sensitivity Scale (empathy)

Narrative

Roter 1995

Provider use of emotion‐handling skills in audio recordings of encounters with simulated patients, actual patients

Changes in emotion handling score using study‐specific coding measure

Dichotomous

Smith 1998

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in audio recorded encounters with real patients, video recorded simulated patients.

Study‐specific rating scales

Narrative

Song 2005

Knowledge of advanced care planning

Patient/surrogate report

Continuous

Stewart 2007

Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in video recordings of encounters.

Score from Patient‐Centred Communication Measure

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Thom 1999

Provider's humaneness during visit

Patient perception from score on Physician Humanistic Behaviors Questionnaire

Narrative

Wilkinson 2008

 Provider use of patient‐centred communication behaviours in audio recordings of encounters.

Communication Skill Rating Scale  coverage score at baseline; skills change score)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Wolf 2008

Reported skills by providers

Structured checklist

Narrative

Patient centered actions

Briel 2006

Medication prescribed

Provider self‐report

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Clark 2000

Medication prescribed, treatment/action plan given

Patient/parent report, provider survey

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Dijkstra 2006

Diabetes‐specific process measures at index visit and 12 months

From medical record

Narrative

Glasgow 2004

Patient‐centred activities completed

Number completed out of a priori list

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Impact on provider‐patient relationship

Bieber 2008

Quality of patient‐physician relationship

By FAPI questionnaire, patient report

Narrative

Harmsen 2005

Mutual understanding

Patient and doctor survey, Mutual Understanding Scale (MUS)

Narrative

Other consultation process outcomes

Brown 2001

Duration of consultation

Audiotape recording

Narrative

Kennedy 2004

Number of visits to clinic, medical and surgical treatment in hospital

Counts from medical record

Narrative

McLean 2004

Duration of consultation

Timed by the physician

Narrative

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Category A consultation process outcome measures
Table 4. Category B satisfaction outcome measures

Study ID

Outcome category B: Satisfaction

How assessed

Use in analysis

Alamo 2002

Patient experience of the consultation

Survey at 2 to 3 months

Narrative

Alder 2007

Satisfaction with consultation and relationship

Adapted version of the Kravitz survey

Narrative

Bieber 2008

Patient satisfaction with decision; decisional conflict

Satisfaction with Decision (SWD); Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)

Narrative

Briel 2006

Patient satisfaction with care received

Score on Langewitz, Patient Satisfaction Survey relative to validation study score

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Clark 2000

Satisfaction with consultation

Patient report using Likert‐type scale items to assess doctor performance of consultation skills

Narrative

Glasgow 2004

Patient satisfaction with care

Patient satisfaction items of Diabetes Patient Recognition Program (PRP)

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Harmsen 2005

Satisfaction with consultation

3‐item survey

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Haskard 2008

Satisfaction with information, overall care

Physician Information‐giving scale (Heisler), single item: whether recommend doctor to a friend

Narrative

Joos 1996

Patient satisfaction with physician skills

American Board of Internal Medicine Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Kennedy 2004

Satisfaction with initial consultation

Consultation satisfaction questionnaire (Baker)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Kinmonth 1998

Patient satisfaction with treatment

Survey dichotomized to high/low

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Krones 2008

Satisfaction with care process and outcome

Patient Participation Scale (Man‐Son‐Hing)

Narrative

Langewitz 1998

Patient satisfaction; Patients who would recommend doctor to a friend.

Score on the German version of the PSQ by the American Board of Internal Medicine; Proportion recommend

Narrative

Lewis 1991

Child satisfaction with visit; parent satisfaction with visit

Child Satisfaction Questionnaire; Parent Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale

Narrative

Loh 2007

Patient satisfaction with care

German version of CSQ‐8 questionnaire for patients

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Longo 2006

Patient satisfaction with communication

COMRADE

Narrative

McLean 2004

Satisfaction with consultation

Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (Baker)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Merckaert 2008

Satisfaction with physician communication skills

Perception of the Interview Questionnaire (Devaux)

Narrative

Pill 1998

Satisfaction treatment

SF36

Narrative

Putnam 1988

Satisfaction with encounter

Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale

Narrative

Smith 1998

Patient satisfaction with medical interview

29 item locally‐developed scale

Narrative

Smith 2006

Patient satisfaction with provider‐patient relationship

Satisfaction With Provider Patient Relationship Questionnaire (PPR) by Smith

Narrative

Stewart 2007

Patient satisfaction with doctor’s information‐giving and interpersonal skills

Cancer Diagnostic Interview Scale (CDIS)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Thom 1999

Patient's satisfaction with visit

Survey by Davis

Narrative

Wilkinson 2008

Satisfaction with care

'Patient Satisfaction With Communication' by Ware

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Wolf 2008

Satisfaction with care

Baker and Taylor Measurement Scale (BTMS) patient survey

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Category B satisfaction outcome measures
Table 5. Category C health behaviour outcome measures

Study ID

Outcome category C: Health Behavior

How assessed

Use in analysis

Alder 2007

Compliance

Kravitz questionnaire for patients

Narrative

Bieber 2008

Therapeutic modality chosen (medication, exercise, relaxation)

Medical record

Narrative

Briel 2006

Re‐consultation within 14 days

Patient survey at 14 days

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Brown 2001

Patient consultation behaviours (question asking, information recall)

None

Not included

Clark 2000

Emergency department visits; hospitalizations; school days missed

Parent/patient report

Narrative

Glasgow 2004

Self‐management goal setting

Met NCQA/ADA diabetes Physician Recognition Program (PRP) criteria or not

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Joos 1996

Medication adherence

Meds score = Number of meds dispensed divided by number prescribed

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Kennedy 2004

Making no more than 2 GP visits per year

Medical record

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Kinmonth 1998

Patients' lifestyle: diet, exercise, smoking

Self‐report

Narrative

Krones 2008

Patient participation in encounter

Patient Participation Scale

Narrative

Loh 2007

Information seeking

PICS‐IS

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Longo 2006

Adherence expectation

COMRADE sub scales

Narrative

Meland 1997

Physical activity, smoking

Self‐report

Narrative

Pill 1998

Patient attendance at practice over last 12 months;

smoking and alcohol use

Self‐report

Narrative

Putnam 1988

Medication adherence,

Appointment adherence

Meds = telephone interview

Appointment adherence = medical record

Narrative

Roter 1995

Utilisation of health care by GHQ positive patients

General Healthcare Questionnaire (GHQ)

Narrative

Smith 2006

Antidepressant used to full dose

Medical record review

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Thom 1999

Continuity with study provider; medication or advice adherence

Medical record review at 6 months

Narrative

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Category C health behaviour outcome measures
Table 6. Category D health status outcome measures

Study ID

Outcome category D: Health status

How assessed

Use in analysis

Alamo 2002

Pain, depression and anxiety

Pain Scale of Nottingham Health Profile; Goldberg Scale of Anxiety, Depression

Narrative

Bieber 2008

Pain, depression; functional capacity; general health status

Pain level (0‐10 VAS) CES‐D; Hannover Functional Quest; SF‐12

Narrative

Briel 2006

Number of days with restricted activities

Self‐report

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Brown 2001

Anxiety

Spielberger

Narrative

Chassany 2006

Pain relief, stiffness, physical functioning/global health; adverse events

 WOMAC = physical functioning, stiffness; Adverse events = Lequensne Index

Narrative

Chenoweth 2009

Quality of life in late‐stage dementia

'Quality of life in late‐stage dementia' survey

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Dijkstra 2006

HbA1c level

Medical record review

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Glasgow 2004

Quality of life, depression

Patient Health Questionnaire‐depression (PHQ‐9)

Narrative

Kennedy 2004

Number and duration of relapses during the course of the year

HADS –Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Kinmonth 1998

Wellbeing score, quality of life

Not specified

Narrative

Krones 2008

Cardiovascular risk

Mean change on Framingham calibrated for Europeans

Narrative

Lewis 1991

Anxiety (child)

Reported by parent

Narrative

Loh 2007

Depression severity

Brief PHQ‐D patient questionnaire

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Longo 2006

Anxiety; health status

Anxiety = Spielberger; health status =SF‐12

Narrative

McLean 2004

Anxiety

Spielberger

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Meland 1997

Risk factors for CHD (blood pressure, cholesterol); Combine risk of myocardial infarction compared with a female without risk factors

Mean from record review

Narrative

Merckaert 2008

Change in anxiety

STAI‐S

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Pill 1998

Health status

Diabetes‐specific measures of well being

Health status = SF‐36

Narrative

Putnam 1988

Symptom improvement

Patient questionnaire
Index: 3x5 point scales (Mushlin 1978)

Narrative

Roter 1995

Health status

GHQ

Narrative

Smith 1998

Patients' physical and psychosocial well being

Change in health status or not, on GHQ

Dichotomous variable in meta‐analysis

Smith 2006

Mental health

MH scale on SF‐36 survey

Narrative

Song 2005

Anxiety, difficulty making choices

Spielberger STAI

Narrative

Sorlie 2007

Subjective health, overall emotional well‐being

SF‐36

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Stewart 2007

Patients’ psychological distress

Brief Symptom Inventory

Narrative

Wilkinson 2008

Health status

General Health Questionnaire‐12 (GHQ‐12)

Continuous variable in meta‐analysis

Wolf 2008

Bariatric patients post‐op infections, complications

Medical record reviews

Narrative

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Category D health status outcome measures
Table 7. Studies with some variables excluded from meta‐analysis

Study

Type of Variable‐ continuous

Reason for exclusion

Glasgow 2004

Health status

Inconsistency in published report of no significant differences between intervention and control groups for diabetes‐specific quality of life, but with point estimates and standard deviations inconsistent with this finding.

Kinmonth 1998

Consultation

Health status

Patient satisfaction

Need standard deviations

Langewitz 1998

Patient satisfaction

Need ICCb

McLean 2004

Consultation

Need standard deviations

Merckaert 2008

Consultation

Methodological problem: patients chosen by physician; did not use some outcomes (selection bias ? health status)

Roter 1995

Consultation

Need ICCb; Need actual scores, standard deviations, pre‐post

Smith 2006

Health status

Need adjusted post scores with standard deviation

Stewart 2007

Consultation

Satisfaction

Health status

Need ICCb

a) PAID‐2 (Problem Areas in Diabetes 2) A questionnaire for diabetes‐specific quality of life.

b) ICC: intra‐cluster correlation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Studies with some variables excluded from meta‐analysis
Comparison 1. Dichotomous Outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Consultation Process Show forest plot

4

876

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.82, 1.13]

2 Satisfaction Show forest plot

4

988

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.93, 1.06]

3 Health Behaviors Show forest plot

4

1097

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [1.18, 1.38]

4 Health Status Show forest plot

2

261

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [1.01, 1.83]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Dichotomous Outcomes
Comparison 2. Continuous Outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Consultation Process Show forest plot

12

1046

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.57, 0.82]

2 Satisfaction Show forest plot

7

813

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.20, 0.49]

3 Health Behaviors Show forest plot

3

288

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.04 [‐0.28, 0.20]

4 Health Status Show forest plot

8

1373

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐0.36, ‐0.15]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Continuous Outcomes
Comparison 3. Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Brief Training < 10 hours Show forest plot

4

177

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.28, 0.89]

2 Extensive training > 18 hours Show forest plot

3

132

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.01, 0.71]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Continuous Outcomes: Consultation Process: Hours of training