Abstract
ABSTRACTBackgroundShared 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsSMAs 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.PROSPEROCRD42020173084
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory