Table 2 Summarized results and evidence ratings
Outcome | Number of studies/ participants (n) | Summarized result | Certainty of evidence according to GRADE | Reasons for reduced certainty of the evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mortality | 3 n = 267 667 | Higher relational continuity of care for patients with SMI may prevent premature mortality/suicide | Low | Risk of bias – 1 Indirectness – 0.5 Inconsistency – 0.5 |
Hospitalization | 4 n = 34 341 | Higher relational continuity of care for patients with SMI may lower the risk of hospitalization | Very low | Risk of bias – 1 Indirectness – 1 Imprecision – 1 |
Emergency department visits | 3 n = 26 926 | Higher relational continuity of care for patients with SMI may reduce the risk of emergency department visits | Low | Risk of bias – 1 Indirectness – 1 |
Costs | 3 n = 8 229 | Higher relational continuity of care for patients with SMI may lower health care costs | Very low | Risk of bias – 1 Indirectness – 1 Inconsistency – 1 |
Symptoms and functions | 3 n = 5 832 | It is not possible to say whether higher relational continuity of care can improve symptoms and functions in patients with SMI | Very low | Risk of bias – 2 Indirectness – 1 Imprecision – 1 |
Adherence to pharmaco-logical treatment | 2 n = 19 765 | It is not possible to say whether relational continuity of care affects adherence to pharmacological treatment for patients with SMI | Very low | Risk of bias – 1 Indirectness – 1 Inconsistency – 1 |
Quality of life | 4 n = 2 007 | Higher relational continuity of care for patients with SMI may affect quality of life positively | Low | Risk of bias – 1 Inconsistency – 1 |