Abstract
Objectives Systematic review of studies evaluating evidence-based health information (EBHI) and decision aids (DAs) in terms of the extent to which inequity-producing factors have been considered and how these factors affect access to health-related information and informed decision-making.
Study design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Methods Systematic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and PSYNDEX from inception to May 2023 to identify evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs that take into account factors associated with unequal opportunities as defined by PROGRESS Plus. Information on the effect of these factors was extracted and analysed in terms of outcomes relevant to the decision-making process.
Results Few studies have examined the impact of EBHI/DAs on outcomes relevant to decision-making with respect to inequity-producing factors. In our final synthesis,12 studies were included. A positive association between the effectiveness of the intervention and the disadvantage status could be found twice and a negative association in three studies. Overall, most of the studies found no difference in knowledge gain, decision conflict and shared decision-making (SDM) between those advantaged and disadvantaged in terms of ethnicity, gender, education, age, income, health literacy, numeracy or socioeconomic status (SES). However, few trials examined this effect and the effect was considered solely in subgroup analyses that were probably underpowered, so asymmetries between these groups may not have been detected in the existing designs.
Conclusion EBHI and DAs have been shown to be effective in promoting decision-making and thus in improving health care. To improve health care equitably, greater attention needs to be paid to methodological requirements in evaluations to fully capture potential differences in access to health-related information between individuals or in populations within the target groups of EBHI/DAs.
PROSPERO registration CRD42018103456
What is already known?
There is evidence that EBHI and DAs do not reach certain patient groups because while being developed and evaluated they do not adequately take into account differences in access to health-related information between different social groups.
There is insufficient evidence whether EBHI and DAs are equally effective for people with factors that are more or less associated with equal access to health information.
What the study adds
A systematic review of evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs to consider factors that lead to inequity and analysis of how these factors influence the intervention effects in terms of access to health-related information and outcomes relevant for decision-making.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy?
Our research makes a valuable contribution to more equitable health care by stressing critical inequality factors that may influence informed decision-making with the help of EBHI and DAs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=103456
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability statement
Most of the data and analyses are available in supplementary files. Additional data are available on request from the corresponding author.
