Table 29GRADE Summary of Findings for Hopelessness

Outcome, follow-up, no. participants (trials) Findings Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) What happens?
Hopelessness

Post-intervention: 84 (1 RCT 50 )

Longest follow-up: 62 (1 RCT 50 )

One RCT50 with high risk of bias (unclear direction) reported on participants’ feeling of hopelessness. This RCT50 compared the effectiveness of HOP program to treatment as usual among adolescent psychiatric patients, who were mostly were female (69.3%), born in Germany (94.8%) and were around 22 months since the first psychiatric diagnosis.

The outcome was assessed by Beck’s Hopelessness Scale (brief version)60 a 4-item questionnaire, with higher scores indicating increased hopelessness.

At post-intervention, there were no significant differences between HOP and TAU groups in change from baseline of mean scores. The mean between-group differences for change from baseline were 0.51 (95% CI –1.88 to 0.85)

At 6-week follow-up, there were no significant differences between HOP and TAU groups in change from baseline of mean scores. The mean between-group differences for change from baseline 1.22 (95% CI –2.68 to 0.24) Thus, there may be little to no difference in the effect of peer support on feeling of hopelessness compared to treatment as usual.

 Very low

due to serious concerns for risk of bias, concerns for inconsistency, serious concerns for indirectness and imprecision.a

There may be little to no difference in the effect of HOP vs. TAU on feeling of hopelessness post-intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain.

There may be little to no difference in the effect of HOP vs. TAU on feeling of hopelessness post-intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain.

HOP= Honest, Open, Proud; HOP-C = Honest, Open, Proud–College; RCT = randomized controlled trial; TAU = treatment as usual

a

At post-intervention and at follow-up: rated down once for risk of bias due to serious concerns about the potential for bias arising from missing outcome data and bias in measurement of the outcomes (participant reported subjective outcomes); rated down once due to serious concerns for inconsistency because of limited of evidence of consistency as only 1 trial was available that reported on the outcome at all time points; rated down once due to serious concerns for indirectness because only 1 program (HOP/HOP-C) was identified and the population seemed relatively homogenous, thereby lowering the generalizability of findings to peer support programs in general; rated down once due to serious concerns about imprecision because of the relatively lower sample size in each comparison; publication bias was not detected.

From: Peer Support Programs for Youth Mental Health

Cover of Peer Support Programs for Youth Mental Health
Peer Support Programs for Youth Mental Health: Health Technology Assessment [Internet].
Copyright © 2022 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.