Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Mar 7;14(3):e067252.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067252.

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

Mei Yee Tang  1   2 , Fiona Graham  3 , Amy O'Donnell  1 , Fiona Beyer  4 , Catherine Richmond  4 , Raenhha Dhami  1   5 , Falko F Sniehotta  1   5 , Eileen F S Kaner  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Mei Yee Tang et al. BMJ Open. .

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.

Keywords: Health policy; Organisation of health services; PRIMARY CARE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram of study selection process. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SMA, shared medical appointment; HSDR, Health Services and Delivery Research
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for (A) HbA1C(%), (B) diastolic blood pressure, (C) systolic blood pressure. HbA1C, glycated haemoglobin A1C; SMA, shared medical appointment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for (A) hospital admissions, (B) emergency department use, (C) primary care visits. SMA, shared medical appointment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clay H, Stern R. Making time in general practice: freeing GP capacity by reducing bureaucracy and avoidable consultations, managing the interface with hospitals and exploring new ways of working. 2015. Available: https://thehealthcreationalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Making-...
    1. Hayhoe B, Verma A, Kumar S. Shared medical appointments. BMJ 2017;358:j4034. 10.1136/bmj.j4034 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones T, Darzi A, Egger G, et al. . Process and systems: a systems approach to embedding group consultations in the NHS. Future Healthc J 2019;6:8–16. 10.7861/futurehosp.6-1-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Booth A, Cantrell A, Preston L, et al. . What is the evidence for the effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of group clinics for patients with chronic conditions? A systematic review. Health Serv Deliv Res 2015;3:1–194. 10.3310/hsdr03460 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wadsworth KH, Archibald TG, Payne AE, et al. . Shared medical appointments and patient-centered experience: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2019;20:97. 10.1186/s12875-019-0972-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types