4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To examine the effectiveness of shared medical appointments (SMAs) compared with one-to-one appointments in primary care for improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services by people with one or more long-term conditions (LTCs).

          Design

          A systematic review of the published literature.

          Data sources

          Six databases, including MEDLINE and Web of Science, were searched 2013–2023. Relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials were included.

          Eligibility criteria

          Randomised controlled trials of SMAs delivered in a primary care setting involving adults over 18 years with one or more LTCs. Studies were excluded if the SMA did not include one-to-one patient-clinician time. All countries were eligible for inclusion.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

          Results

          Twenty-nine 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=16). There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=−0.086, 95% CI=−0.16 to –0.02, n=10) (p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use. For example, no difference between SMAs and usual care was found for admissions to emergency departments at follow-up (d=−0.094, 95% CI=−0.27 to 0.08, n=6, p=0.289).

          Conclusions

          There was a little difference in the effectiveness of SMAs compared with usual care in terms of health outcomes or healthcare service use in the short-term (range 12 weeks to 24 months). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should include a wider array of LTCs, standardised outcome measures and more details on SMA components to help inform economic evaluation.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42020173084.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions.

            CONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity. The objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions. In a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed. This resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above. "BCT taxonomy v1," an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium.

              Treatment fidelity refers to the methodological strategies used to monitor and enhance the reliability and validity of behavioral interventions. This article describes a multisite effort by the Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) to identify treatment fidelity concepts and strategies in health behavior intervention research. The work group reviewed treatment fidelity practices in the research literature, identified techniques used within the BCC, and developed recommendations for incorporating these practices more consistently. The recommendations cover study design, provider training, treatment delivery, treatment receipt, and enactment of treatment skills. Funding agencies, reviewers, and journal editors are encouraged to make treatment fidelity a standard part of the conduct and evaluation of health behavior intervention research. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                7 March 2024
                : 14
                : 3
                : e067252
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science , Ringgold_5994Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [2 ] departmentSchool of Psychology , Ringgold_4468University of Leeds , Leeds, UK
                [3 ] departmentPopulation Health Sciences Institute , Ringgold_5994Newcastle University , Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Public Health, Preventive and Social Medicine , Ringgold_9144Heidelberg University , Mannheim, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Fiona Graham; fiona.graham@ 123456newcastle.ac.uk

                MYT and FG are joint first authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-6025
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5828-0955
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4071-9434
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-067252
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067252
                10921542
                38453205
                14620fec-3162-42f4-b817-5347ef0e020e
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 10 August 2022
                : 21 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR PRU in Behavioural Science;
                Award ID: PR-PRU-1217-20501
                Categories
                General practice / Family practice
                1506
                1696
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                primary care,organisation of health services,health policy
                Medicine
                primary care, organisation of health services, health policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article