Patient held clinical information for people with psychotic illnesses

Henderson C, Laugharne R

Bookmark this:

more ...

Email this page

Summary

Synopsis pending.

This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008 Issue 3, Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This record should be cited as: Henderson C, Laugharne R. Patient held clinical information for people with psychotic illnesses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001711. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001711.

This version first published online: January 24. 2000

Abstract

Background

It is important to seek cost-effective methods of improving the care and outcome of those with serious mental illnesses. Patient-held records, where the person with the illness holds all or some personal information relating to the course and care of their illness, are now the norm in some clinical settings. Their value for those with serious mental illnesses is unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of personalised and accessible patient-held clinical information for people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness.

Search strategy

Electronic searches of AMED (1980-1998), Biological Abstracts (1985-1998), British Nursing Index (1994-1998), CAB (1973-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), HEALTHSTAR (1990-1999), HMIC (King's Fund Database 1979-1998 & HELMIS 1984-1998), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsycLIT (1887-1999), Royal College of Nursing Database (1985-1996), SIGLE (1990-1998), Sociological Abstracts (1963-1998) and the Internet (http://www.controlled-trials.com/) were undertaken. This was supplemented by personal contact with the Executive Board of the European Network for Mental Health Service Evaluation.

Selection criteria

The inclusion criteria were that studies should:
i. be randomised or quasi-randomised trials;
ii. have involved adults with a diagnosis of a psychotic illness; and
iii. compare any personalised and accessible clinical information held by the patient beyond standard care to standard information routinely held such as appointment cards and generic information on diagnosis, treatment or services available.

Data collection and analysis

Study selection and data extraction was reliability undertaken. Analysis was not possible.

Main results

Not one study met the inclusion criteria for the review. One study (Stafford 1997) was found on the use of client held records for people with long term mental illness but the participants had not been randomised. Two important randomised studies (Lester 1999, Papageorgiou 1999) are ongoing.

Authors' conclusions

There is a gap in the evidence regarding patient-held, personalised, accessible clinical information for people with psychotic illnesses. It cannot be assumed that patient-held information is beneficial or cost-effective without evidence from well planned, conducted and reported randomised trials.

top of page | contact us | about this site | disclaimer | privacy