ABSTRACT
Objectives 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 2013-2020 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, most commonly diabetes (n=12), 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), healthcare utilisation, and cost 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, n=8). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. 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. 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. To better understand SMA’s potential to reduce demand on healthcare services, further investigation is needed as to how SMAs can be best incorporated in the patient care pathway.
PROSPERO protocol registration CRD42020173084
299/300
Focus on randomised controlled trials, highest quality evidence of the effectiveness of SMAs in primary care for long term conditions
Robust search strategy, based on previous high-quality review; refined by information specialists to focus on primary care
Rapidly evolving area of practice and publications and the most recent evidence may be missing.
Small number of studies reported resource use and costs limiting conclusions regarding efficacy of SMAs in primary care.
FUNDING This paper is independent research commissioned and funded by the NIHR PRU in Behavioural Science (Award: PR-PRU-1217-20501). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm’s length bodies, and other Government Departments. The funders had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis or interpretation of data or in the writing of the manuscript.
COMPETING INTERESTS None to declare.
CHECKLIST See supplementary material for PRISMA checklist.
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
fiona.graham{at}newcastle.ac.uk
amy.odonnell{at}newcastle.ac.uk
fiona.beyer{at}newcastle.ac.uk
catherine.richmond{at}newcastle.ac.uk
falko.sniehotta{at}medma.uni-heidelberg.de
eileen.kaner{at}newcastle.ac.uk
↵+ Joint co-first authors
Following the submission to BMJ quality and safety, we made some amendments to the manuscript as per the reviewers comments. We amended some of the phrasing and language in the abstract, conclusion and discussion to clarify the key novel findings of the paper. We added to the section regarding limitations of the study. The colour of the legend in S5 was amended to improve legibility.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
