Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11686973›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care.

N Rowland, P Bower, C Mellor, P Heywood, C Godfrey

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

N RowlandYork Health Services Research Unit, York NHS Trust, Bootham Park Hospital, Bootham, York, North Yorkshire, UK, Y030 7BY. Nancy.Rowland@excha.yhs-tr.northy.nhs.uk
P Bower
C Mellor
P Heywood
C Godfrey

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is wide clinician and patient support for counselling in primary care, particularly in the UK. This review examines the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling for psychological and psychosocial problems in the primary care setting.

objectivesTo assess the effects of counselling in primary care by reviewing cost and outcome data for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy included electronic searching of databases (including the CCDAN Register of RCTs and CCTs) along with handsearching of a specialist journal. Published and unpublished sources (clinical trials, books, dissertations, agency reports etc.) were searched, and their reference lists scanned. Contact was made with subject experts and CCDAN members. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled patient preference trials comparing counselling in primary care with usual general practitioner care for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. Trials completed before the end of April 1998 were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were independently assessed by at least two reviewers for appropriateness of inclusion and methdological quality. MAIN

resultsFour trials, involving 678 participants, of whom 487 were followed up, were included. Data for psychological symptom levels (four trials) were pooled statistically. Patients receiving counselling had significantly better psychological symptom levels post intervention than patients receiving usual general practitioner care (standardised mean difference -0.30, 95% CI, (-0.49 to - 0.11). The effect remained statistically significant when the results from studies with less rigorous methodology were excluded in a sensitivity analysis. Patients who received counselling tended to be more satisfied with their treatment (three trials). Health service utilisation data were reported in all trials reviewed, but only one trial undertook a cost analysis. No clear cost advantage was associated with either counselling or usual general practice care. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsPatients who received counselling were more likely to have improved psychological symptom levels than those who did not receive counselling. Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. There is limited information about the cost effectiveness of counselling, with one study reporting no clear cost advantage with either counselling or general practice care. The four trials included in this review were all pragmatic trials of counselling in primary care in the UK, which reflect the reality of clinical provision in this context. There were methdological weaknesses identified in the studies, which should be taken into account when considering the results. The evidence base will be extended by trials of counselling which are nearing completion.

Indexed as

Primary Health CarePsychotherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisCounselingFamily PracticeHumansPatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.