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

Protocol and registration

This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173084). Regarding protocol changes, we proposed coding of Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy V1 (BCTTv1)[12] used in SMAs and associated with changes in outcomes. However, most included studies did not report the required detail and so instead we narratively described this information.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met the criteria outlined in Table 1. The focus of this review was on models of SMAs that include one-to-one time for every patient in attendance as per the description of group consultations reported previously [1,2].

Search strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was developed, based on the approach described in Booth et al.[13], to search for trials published after their search, namely the period 2013-2020. Key changes included the removal of the terms “group outpatient”, “GMV” or “GMA”, “group processes” and “Group care” to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the search (see S1). The search strategy was first used to search MEDLINE (via OVID) and then translated for the following databases: EMBASE (via OVID), Science citation index (via Web of Knowledge) Social Science Citation Index (via Web of Knowledge), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), DARE, NHS EED, and HTA (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). Any relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials, including those in relevant systematic reviews[4,6,14,15], were also included in the review.

Screening

Screening and data extraction was facilitated using the systematic review management tool, Covidence[16]. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria, and a third reviewer adjudicated any disagreements. This process was also applied to the screening of full-text papers.

Data extraction

Information relating to the study design, population, and intervention were extracted based on a framework on form of delivery[17] (e.g. experience/training of the providers and facilitators), outcomes, and results were extracted from all relevant papers using a data extraction form (see S2). All information was double-extracted by two researchers, with disagreements resolved through discussion or third-party moderation.

Where data were reported for several time-points, the data-point closest to the end of the SMA intervention was used to calculate the effect size as this would be when the largest effects attributable to the SMA is expected. If available, intention-to-treat data were used to calculate effect sizes.

Quality assessment

Two researchers independently assessed the quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool[18]. Percentages of judgements (high, low, or unclear) for each domain was calculated across the studies.

Data analysis/synthesis

We mapped all reported outcomes into the following categories agreed by the wider research team to best reflect SMA effectiveness and efficiency: health outcomes (biomedical indicators, psychological and well-being measures), healthcare utilisation and cost and resource use.

Meta-analyses were performed in StataIC 15. Given the heterogeneity between studies, a random-effects model was used[19]. Meta-analyses were conducted where there were at least two studies reporting a specific outcome[20]. Outcome effect sizes were calculated as Cohen’s d (standardised mean difference). Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I-Square (I²), whereby 50-90% was considered as representing substantial heterogeneity[21]. Authors were contacted for additional information if data needed to calculate effect sizes were not sufficiently reported in the published paper(s). Where this information could not be obtained from authors, p-values and confidence intervals were used to calculate effect sizes[10]. Only studies in which the comparator was usual care were pooled into the meta-analysis.

Using meta-regression, sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore whether results differed according to sources of bias identified from the risk of bias assessment.

Studies that were too heterogeneous to perform meta-analysis, and where the comparator was not usual care, were synthesised narratively. Extracted data was tabulated by outcome measure to enable comparisons and relationships across studies to be more easily examined [22]. For each outcome measure, evidence of an effect was determined by the p-values reported in the papers. To assess the certainty of the evidence, number of study participants, confidence intervals and the consistency of effects across studies, the risk of bias of the studies, how directly the included studies address the planned question (directness) were taken into consideration.

Patient and Public Involvement

The PRU BehSci Public Patient Involvement group provided their patient perspective about outcome measures of interests.

Characteristics of the included studies

Twenty-three unique trials (reported in thirty-four papers) were identified, for PRISMA details see Figure 1 and Table 2. See S3 for list of included papers.

Fifteen trials (70%) were for a single LTC, of these: 12 were for diabetes[27,29,30,33–38,41–43], two for hypertension[54,55]; and one was for osteoporosis[56]. Eight trials considered multiple LTCs: three were diabetes and hypertension/cardiovascular risk[44–46,50]; one was diabetes and depression[47], one was for overweight patients with diabetes [48]; one was chronic pain and depression[26]; and one included multiple LTCs including: arthritis, hypertension, cancer, deafness and diabetes[23]. Overall, 20/23 (87%) of trials focused on patients with diabetes.

Eighteen trials (83%) were conducted in the US[23,26,27,29,30,33,34,37,38,41–48,50], two in China[36,54] and one each in Australia[35], Germany[55] and the UK[56]. Eleven trials were measured the effectiveness, impact or efficacy of SMAs compared to usual care[23,26,27,30,33,36,37,42,43,46,50], Eight trials examined feasibility parameters[28,34,35,38,41,42,47,54], and two trials were non-inferiority/superiority trials[48,49,56].

In eight trials (35%) participants were veterans or military personnel[33,37,44–48,50]. Participants were from low-income communities in four trials[26,27,41,42], and uninsured communities in three US trials[29,30,38]. Two trials were tailored for non-English speaking participants, where written materials were available in Spanish[38,42]. The majority of participants were over 50 years old, the mean age of participants ranged between 50.5[25,26] to 74 years old[56]. Two trials were specifically for older patients over 55 or 60 years respectively[23,55], and two trials excluded patients over 75[48] and 80 years[36]. Twelve trials (52%) had a majority of female participants[23,27,28,36,41,42,54,56]. Ten trials had majority of male participants[33–35,37,44–48,50]. One trial did not report the gender balance of participants[55]. Five studies had a majority White population[26,33,43,46,47], six trials had a majority Black population[27,29,30,34,48,50], two trials had a majority Hispanic population[41,42], two trials had a majority Asian population[35,36], and one trial had a majority White-Latino population [38]. Five studies did not report the ethnicity of participants[23,44,54–56].

Most trials (n=17, 78%) had a two-arm design that compared SMAs with usual care, typically a one-to-one (1:1) appointment with primary care physician[23,26,27,29,30,35,36,41–47,50,54,56]. In three other two-arm trials, the comparator was a 1:1 appointment plus two diabetes group education sessions[37], an SMA without an integrated weight management programme[48] or an SMA with a personal health planning component (PHP)[34]. Two trials had a delayed six-month waitlist control design[41,42]. Two trials had a three-arm design: one examined the effectiveness of a cardiovascular risk reduction clinic compared with group medical visits and usual care[45]; and a second compared an automated telephone self-management service with SMAs and usual care[38]. Where descriptions of usual care were available, usual care was delivered by a primary care provider, typically a physician/GP or nurse practitioner [57–62]and, in some cases, a pharmacist [62,63]or dietician [64]. A review of medication and chronic disease monitoring (e.g., measures of blood pressure and HbA1c) commonly took place in these sessions [58,59,63,65,66]. In some of the SMAs for diabetes, the usual care sessions included some form of individualised diabetes self-management education[58,62,64] or referrals were made available to see a diabetes educator dietician [59,67].

SMA components and mode of delivery

There was much variation in the SMAs models reported by studies (see S9 for detailed description). Key features of SMA models were: facilitated group discussion or group question and answer session (15 trials)[19,22,25,26,29,30,32–34,37–39,40,43,46,50], ‘group education’ (14 trials)[19,23,25,31–33,37,38,42,43,44,46,50], and the opportunity to socialise (11 trials)[19,22,25,26,29,32,34,37,38,46,50].

SMAs were delivered face-to-face in all trials, although three SMA models included digital technologies, namely website and telephone support[26] and phone calls or text message support and/or reminders[41,42]. In three trials[37,45,56] SMAs were delivered by a single healthcare professional though mostly they were delivered by multidisciplinary teams. Professionals most commonly involved were family physicians[23,27,28,34–38,43,48,50,54,55], nurse practitioners[27,30–33,36,48,49] or nurses[23,24,43,44,46,50–54]. It was not always possible to tell what role each member of staff had in the delivery of the SMA. Provider characteristics other than profession or role were rarely reported, though two trials involving a majority Hispanic/Latino participants reported that the community health worker and or physician were bilingual[38,42]. Four trials reported that the same interventionists attended all visits for a particular group[44,48,50,55]. One trial of diabetes SMAs reported that group assignments were maintained for all SMAs to facilitate peer interactions and relationships within groups[37]. The consistency in group composition in terms of patient and interventionists attending each session was not reported by most studies.

Trial outcome measures varied across trials though most included biomedical indicators, psychological and well-being measures, healthcare service use and cost and resource use. Full details of all outcome measures reported by the studies are presented in S4.

Risk of bias

Risk of bias item across the studies was generally low across the items, except for ‘Blinding of participants and personnel’ (83% of trials high, 17% unclear) (See S5).

Effectiveness of SMAs

Comparison with previous literature

Like previous reviews of SMAs for LTCs[4,15,70], more than half of the included RCTs included patients with diabetes, and as such the most commonly reported outcome measure was HbA1C. However, unlike previous reviews[71,72], we did not observe any significant improvements in HbA1c. This may be because previous reviews included trials in secondary care. Our meta-analysis showed that SMA participants had lower DBP compared to patients who received usual care. [54]

Previous systematic reviews have been inconclusive with regards to the impact of SMAs on healthcare utilisation. Edelman et al.’s (2012) review[72] of SMAs for patients with chronic medical conditions in older adults found a lower pattern of healthcare utilisation, whilst Booth et al. (2015)[4] reported a mixed pattern of changes. Our meta-analyses show that SMAs do not differ from usual care in terms of healthcare utilisation. There is no evidence in the present data to suggest that patients compensate for a lack of privacy by returning to primary care or that they risk hospitalisation because issues are not adequately addressed during the SMA session(s). However, it should be noted that the key source of bias across the included studies was the lack of blinding of participants and personnel. Therefore, possible selection bias may result in recruitment of SMA participants with less concern about sharing their personal/medical information.

In comparison to biomedical outcomes and psychological outcomes, healthcare service use and costs and resource use and other behavioural outcomes were less frequently reported by studies. This echoes the findings of Edelman et al. (2015)[46] which found there to be limited data on key patient-centred outcomes such as patient satisfaction. Behavioural outcomes such as medication adherence are important across many LTCs and are key to understanding how patients are self-managing their conditions. In line with Kelly et al.’s (2017)[12] recommendation, future studies should report outcome effectiveness measures that are common or comparable across different LTCs such as physical activity, self-efficacy, medication adherence, and quality of life. It would be advantageous to agree a Core Outcome Set (COS), consisting of a standardised group of outcomes, to be reported by all SMA trials. This can help with future evaluations of SMAs through reducing heterogeneity and facilitating meta-analysis and ensuring that outcome measures are relevant to key stakeholders[73].

Strengths and limitations

Although previous reviews have explored the effectiveness of SMAs in improving health outcomes, this review provides a focus on primary care which is key to managing LTCs. We found ten additional trials with 1160 participants since the comprehensive work by Booth et al. (2015)[4] indicating a rapidly growing field. We used robust methods whereby our search strategy was developed with input from Information Specialists through an iterative process and key stages of the review (including screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal) were undertaken independently by two reviewers. We included studies regardless of type of LTC so that we were able to summarise all the available evidence on effectiveness of SMAs for LTCs in primary care in one analysis. However, evidence of an effect was determined by p=<.0.5 in the papers. This assumes that studies were adequately powered, which may not be the case, particularly for some of the secondary outcomes of the included studies.

Limitations of evidence base and implications for future research

Despite using a form of delivery framework to extract relevant study information[17], some important contextual factors, such characteristics of the healthcare professionals delivering the SMA, may not have been captured as this information was missing from the authors’ descriptions of the SMAs. Similar components may be described differently by different authors or, conversely, similar descriptions are used to describe different components. Using standardised taxonomies for describing form of delivery and intervention content when designing the intervention/SMA content could help to identify important behavioural components and key implementation processes that contribute to intervention effectiveness, allowing for replication. However, for this to be possible, it is also important that interventionists clearly specify which target behaviours (e.g. to increase physical activity) the SMAs aim to change. None of the included studies included measures of fidelity which is also important for determining whether the session(s) are delivered as intended to achieve optimum effects[74]. Further, theoretical underpinnings were lacking in the included SMA interventions, making it difficult to identify ‘mechanisms of action’ through which interventions bring about change[75]. Future SMAs interventions should be theory-based and be explicit in reporting its theoretical underpinnings.

Where multiple healthcare professionals are involved in the SMA, their key role and purpose in the SMA were rarely clearly defined. There was also limited reporting on the composition of the SMA groups across some of the included studies (i.e. how patients were selected for recruitment and size). Therefore, it is unclear which groups of patients might benefit from attending the same SMAs together and what implications SMAs may have for intervention-generated health inequalities. One third of the included studies were conducted on US veterans and one third of studies have involved participants from low-income/uninsured population groups. Generalisability of these groups to other healthcare settings in other countries is unclear. There needs to be further examination into how SMAs have been implemented into typical NHS practice. It was envisaged that “they are not an addition to one-to-one appointments – they replace them.” (p.65, Clay & Stern, 2015). However, there is anecdotal evidence that SMAs are being used in addition to usual care models of chronic disease management rather than as replacements. Further investigations into SMAs for patients with one or more LTCs is required, including a wider variety of LTCs (such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and with more diverse population groups. For example, including low-income and disadvantaged groups in other countries, including the UK.

Conclusions

This review is the first to examine the effects of SMAs delivered in primary care on health outcomes and healthcare service use in patients with one or more LTCs. Our review suggests that SMAs are unlikely to result in less favourable outcomes to patients with LTCs compared to usual care. To identify key intervention components that contribute to effectiveness, future studies will benefit from using standardised taxonomies to report intervention content. The use of an evaluation framework, with a core outcome set, is recommended to improve evidence in this field.