IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0094670.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Marie-Anne Durand
  • Lewis Carpenter
  • Hayley Dolan
  • Paulina Bravo
  • Mala Mann
  • Frances Bunn
  • Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Background: Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities. Objective: To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Data Sources: CINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012. Study Eligibility Criteria: We included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group. Results: We included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective. Conclusion: Results indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094670
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094670
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094670&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0094670?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelo E. Volandes & Michael J. Barry & Yuchiao Chang & Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, 2010. "Improving Decision Making at the End of Life With Video Images," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 29-34, January.
    2. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Ann Dixon & Andrew Hayen & Jesse Jansen & Sian Smith & Judy M. Simpson, 2012. "The Influence of Graphic Display Format on the Interpretations of Quantitative Risk Information among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 532-544, July.
    3. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    4. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sian K. Smith & Michael Wolf, 2010. "The Challenge of Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Lower Literacy: A Framework for Research and Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 35-44, January.
    5. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. David R. Rovner & Celia E. Wills & Vence Bonham & Gilbert Williams & Janet Lillie & Karen Kelly-Blake & Mark V. Williams & Margaret Holmes-Rovner, 2004. "Decision Aids for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Applicability across Race and Education," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(4), pages 359-366, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dahl, Andrew J. & Milne, George R. & Peltier, James W., 2021. "Digital health information seeking in an omni-channel environment: A shared decision-making and service-dominant logic perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 840-850.
    2. Renata W. Yen & Jenna Smith & Jaclyn Engel & Danielle Marie Muscat & Sian K. Smith & Julien Mancini & Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez & Glyn Elwyn & A. James O’Malley & JoAnna K. Leyenaar & Olivia Mac & , 2021. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 870-896, October.
    3. Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    4. Louisa Blair & France Légaré, 2015. "Is Shared Decision Making a Utopian Dream or an Achievable Goal?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(6), pages 471-476, December.
    5. Bakanauskienė Irena & Baronienė Laura, 2017. "Theoretical Background for the Decision-Making Process Modelling under Controlled Intervention Conditions," Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Sciendo, vol. 78(1), pages 7-19, December.
    6. Serena Barello & Lorenzo Palamenghi & Guendalina Graffigna, 2020. "The Mediating Role of the Patient Health Engagement Model on the Relationship Between Patient Perceived Autonomy Supportive Healthcare Climate and Health Literacy Skills," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Tamara Brown & Sarah Smith & Raj Bhopal & Adetayo Kasim & Carolyn Summerbell, 2015. "Diet and Physical Activity Interventions to Prevent or Treat Obesity in South Asian Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    8. Kevin D. Li & Christopher S. Saigal & Megha D. Tandel & Lorna Kwan & Moira Inkelas & Dana L. Alden & Stanley K. Frencher & Kiran Gollapudi & Jeremy Blumberg & Jamal Nabhani & Jonathan Bergman, 2021. "Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 120-132, February.
    9. Joann Seo & Melody S. Goodman & Mary Politi & Melvin Blanchard & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2016. "Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 550-556, May.
    10. Dorthe Gaby Bove & Ann‐Britt Zakrisson & Julie Midtgaard & Kirsten Lomborg & Dorthe Overgaard, 2016. "Undefined and unpredictable responsibility: a focus group study of the experiences of informal caregiver spouses of patients with severe COPD," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3-4), pages 483-493, February.
    11. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    12. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    14. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    17. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    19. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094670. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.