Involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in psychosocial, mental health symptom and service use outcomes for clients that were no better or worse than those achieved by professionals employed in similar roles, particularly for case management services.There is low quality evidence that involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in a small reduction in clients' use of crisis or emergency services. The nature of the consumer-providers' involvement differs compared to professionals, as do the resources required to support their involvement. The overall quality of the evidence is moderate to low. There is no evidence of harm associated with involving consumer-providers in mental health teams.Future randomised controlled trials of consumer-providers in mental health services should minimise bias through the use of adequate randomisation and concealment of allocation, blinding of outcome assessment where possible, the comprehensive reporting of outcome data, and the avoidance of contamination between treatment groups. Researchers should adhere to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting standards for clinical trials.Future trials should further evaluate standardised measures of clients' mental health, adverse outcomes for clients, the potential benefits and harms to the consumer-providers themselves (including need to return to treatment), and the financial costs of the intervention. They should utilise consistent, validated measurement tools and include a clear description of the consumer-provider role (eg specific tasks, responsibilities and expected deliverables of the role) and relevant training for the role so that it can be readily implemented. The weight of evidence being strongly based in the United States, future research should be located in diverse settings including in low- and middle-income countries.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.

The value of audio-visual interventions as a tool for helping to enhance the informed consent process for people considering participating in clinical trials remains largely unclear, although trends are emerging with regard to improvements in knowledge and satisfaction. Many relevant outcomes have not been evaluated in randomised trials. Triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants during the informed consent process, mindful of the range of outcomes that the intervention should be designed to achieve, and balancing the resource implications of intervention development and delivery against the purported benefits of any intervention.More trials, adhering to CONSORT standards, and conducted in settings and populations underserved in this review, i.e. low- and middle-income countries and people with low literacy, would strengthen the results of this review and broaden its applicability. Assessing process measures, such as time taken to administer the intervention and researcher satisfaction, would inform the implementation of audio-visual consent materials.

No abstract

The value of audio-visual interventions for people considering participating in clinical trials remains unclear. Evidence is mixed as to whether audio-visual interventions enhance people's knowledge of the trial they are considering entering, and/or the health condition the trial is designed to address; one study showed improved retention of knowledge amongst intervention recipients. The intervention may also have small positive effects on the quality of information disclosed, and may increase willingness to participate in the short-term; however the evidence is weak. There were no data for several primary outcomes, including harms. In the absence of clear results, triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants. Further research should take the form of high-quality randomised controlled trials, with clear reporting of methods. Studies should conduct content assessment of audio-visual and other innovative interventions for people of differing levels of understanding and education; also for different age and cultural groups. Researchers should assess systematically the effects of different intervention components and delivery characteristics, and should involve consumers in intervention development. Studies should assess additional outcomes relevant to individuals' decisional capacity, using validated tools, including satisfaction; anxiety; and adherence to the subsequent trial protocol.