ABSTRACT
Background Shared medical appointments (SMAs) have the potential to address interlinked challenges of limited capacity in primary healthcare and rising prevalence of patients with multiple long-term conditions (LTCs). This review aimed to examine the effectiveness of SMAs compared to one-to-one appointments in primary care at improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services.
Methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of SMAs involving patients with LTCs in primary care across six databases from 2013 and added eligible papers identified from previous relevant reviews. Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.
Results Twenty-three 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, mostly commonly diabetes (n=13), although eight trials selected patients with multiple LTCs. There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures which we categorised into health outcomes (biomedical indicators, psychological and well-being measures), behavioural outcomes, and resource use. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=-0.123, 95%CI = −0.22, −0.03, k=8). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Where individual studies showed significant differences (patient self-efficacy), these trended in favour of SMAs. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use.
Conclusions SMAs were at least as effective as usual care in terms of health outcomes and did not lead to increased healthcare service use in the short-term. They show some potential in improving self-efficacy which may boost self-care. To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should target standardised behavioural and health outcomes and clearly report SMA components so key behavioural ingredients can be identified. Similarly, transparent approaches to measuring costs would improve comparability between studies.
PROSPERO CRD42020173084
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=173084
Funding Statement
This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science (project reference PR-PRU-1217-20501)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science (project reference PR-PRU-1217-20501)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.