Evidence mapPaperPMID 38453205Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Effectiveness of shared medical appointments delivered in primary care for improving health outcomes in patients with long-term conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Mei Yee Tang, Fiona Graham, Amy O'Donnell, Fiona Beyer, Catherine Richmond, Raenhha Dhami, Falko F Sniehotta, Eileen F S Kaner

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mei Yee TangNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3116-6025
Fiona GrahamNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK fiona.graham@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5828-0955
Amy O'DonnellNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4071-9434
Fiona BeyerPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Catherine RichmondPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Raenhha DhamiNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Falko F SniehottaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Eileen F S KanerNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness of shared medical appointments (SMAs) compared with one-to-one appointments in primary care for improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services by people with one or more long-term conditions (LTCs).

designA systematic review of the published literature. DATA SOURCES: Six databases, including MEDLINE and Web of Science, were searched 2013-2023. Relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials were included. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of SMAs delivered in a primary care setting involving adults over 18 years with one or more LTCs. Studies were excluded if the SMA did not include one-to-one patient-clinician time. All countries were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

resultsTwenty-nine unique trials were included. SMA models varied in terms of components, mode of delivery and target population. Most trials recruited patients with a single LTC, most commonly diabetes (n=16). There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=-0.086, 95% CI=-0.16 to -0.02, n=10) (p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use. For example, no difference between SMAs and usual care was found for admissions to emergency departments at follow-up (d=-0.094, 95% CI=-0.27 to 0.08, n=6, p=0.289).

conclusionsThere was a little difference in the effectiveness of SMAs compared with usual care in terms of health outcomes or healthcare service use in the short-term (range 12 weeks to 24 months). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should include a wider array of LTCs, standardised outcome measures and more details on SMA components to help inform economic evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173084.

Indexed as

Shared Medical AppointmentsAppointments and SchedulesHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHealth policyOrganisation of health servicesPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID38453205
PMCPMC10921542

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.