Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Marie-Anne Durand, Lewis Carpenter, Hayley Dolan, Paulina Bravo, Mala Mann, Frances Bunn, Glyn Elwyn, 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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram.
Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram.
Figure 2. Included studies rated against the…
Figure 2. Included studies rated against the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
Figure 3. Forest plot for continuous outcomes.
Figure 3. Forest plot for continuous outcomes.
Figure 4. Forest plot for continuous outcomes…
Figure 4. Forest plot for continuous outcomes by study design.
Figure 5. Forest plot for continuous outcomes…
Figure 5. Forest plot for continuous outcomes without Drake study.
Figure 6. Forest plot for binary outcomes.
Figure 6. Forest plot for binary outcomes.
Figure 7. Funnel plot for continuous outcomes.
Figure 7. Funnel plot for continuous outcomes.

References

    1. Wanless D (2004) The Wanless report: Securing good health for the whole population.
    1. Department of health (2010) Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. NHS White Paper.
    1. Coulter A (1999) Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back. BMJ 319: 719–720.
    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, et al. (2006) Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333: 417.
    1. Coulter A, Collins A (2011) Making shared decision making a reality: no decision about me without me. London.
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, et al... (2011) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001431.
    1. Estabrooks C, Goel V, Thiel E, Pinfold P, Sawka C, et al. (2001) Decision aids: are they worth it? A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 6: 170–182.
    1. Molenaar S, Sprangers MA, Postma-Schuit FC, Rutgers EJ, Noorlander J, et al. (2000) Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Medical Decision Making 20: 112–127.
    1. O'Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, et al. (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. Brit Med J 319: 731–734.
    1. Thomson R, Murtagh M, Khaw FM (2005) Tensions in public health policy: patient engagement, evidence-based public health and health inequalities. Qual Saf Health Care 14: 398–400.
    1. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155: 97–107.
    1. Albano JD, Ward E, Jemal A, Anderson R, Cokkinides VE, et al. (2007) Cancer mortality in the United States by education level and race. J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 1384–1394.
    1. Wolf MS, Knight SJ, Lyons EA, Durazo-Arvizu R, Pickard SA, et al. (2006) Literacy, race, and PSA level among low-income men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Urology 68: 89–93.
    1. Leon DA, Walt G, Satariano WA (2001) Poverty, inequality and health: an international perspective. Am J Epidemiol 154: 588–589.
    1. Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R (2006) Patients' preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns 60: 102–114.
    1. Frosch DL, May SG, Rendle KA, Tietbohl C, Elwyn G (2012) Authoritarian physicians and patients' fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff (Millwood) 31: 1030–1038.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.
    1. Scholl I, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Sepucha K, Elwyn G, Legare F, et al. (2011) Measurement of shared decision making - a review of instruments. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 105: 313–324.
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, et al. (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928.
    1. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasability of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non randomised studies in health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52: 377–384.
    1. Hedges G, Hedges LV (1981) Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics 6: 107–128.
    1. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. ; Press A, editor. Orlando.
    1. Becker BJ (1988) Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 41: 257–278.
    1. Bylund CL, Goytia EJ, D'Agostino TA, Bulone L, Horner J, et al. (2011) Evaluation of a Pilot Communication Skills Training Intervention for Minority Cancer Patients. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 29: 347–358.
    1. Drake BF, Shelton RC, Gilligan T, Allen JD (2010) A church-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among African American men. J Natl Med Assoc 102: 164–171.
    1. Kim SP, Knight SJ, Tomori C, Colella KM, Schoor RA, et al. (2001) Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Cancer Invest 19: 684–691.
    1. Ross L, Ashford AD, Bleechington SJ, Dark T, Erwin DO (2010) Applicability of a video intervention to increase informed decision making for prostate-specific antigen testing. J Natl Med Assoc 102: 228–236.
    1. Wray RJ, Vijaykumar S, Jupka K, Zellin S, Shahid M (2011) Addressing the Challenge of Informed Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Community Outreach to African American Men. American Journal of Mens Health 5: 508–516.
    1. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Carson KA, Bone LR, Larson SM, et al. (2011) A randomized trial to improve patient-centered care and hypertension control in underserved primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 26: 1297–1304.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Friedman LC, Granchi TS, Neff NE, et al. (2006) Preliminary testing of a just-in-time, user-defined values clarification exercise to aid lower literate women in making informed breast cancer treatment decisions. Health Expect 9: 218–231.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granch TS, Nefe NE, Spann SJ, et al. (2006) Entertainment education for informed breast cancer treatment decisions in low-literate women: development and initial evaluation of a patient decision aid. J Cancer Educ 21: 133–139.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granchi TS, Neff NE, Robinson EK, et al. (2011) Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: A randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Education & Counseling 84: 41–48.
    1. Kripalani S, Sharma J, Justice E, Justice J, Spiker C, et al. (2007) Low literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer - A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 33: 83–90.
    1. Miller DP Jr, Spangler JG, Case LD, Goff DC Jr, Singh S, et al. (2011) Effectiveness of a web-based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed-literacy population. Am J Prev Med 40: 608–615.
    1. Rovner DR, Wills CE, Bonham V, Williams G, Lillie J, et al. (2004) Decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia: applicability across race and education. Med Decis Making 24: 359–366.
    1. Volandes AE, Barry MJ, Chang YC, Paasche-Orlow MK (2010) Improving Decision Making at the End of Life With Video Images. Medical Decision Making 30: 29–34.
    1. Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, et al. (2008) Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Education & Counseling 73: 482–489.
    1. Driscoll DL, Rupert DJ, Golin CE, McCormack LA, Sheridan SL, et al. (2008) Promoting Prostate-Specific Antigen Informed Decision-Making. Evaluating Two Community-Level Interventions. Am J Prev Med 35: 87–94.
    1. Kakkilaya V, Groome LJ, Platt D, Kurepa D, Pramanik A, et al. (2011) Use of a visual aid to improve counseling at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 128: e1511–1519.
    1. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM (2010) A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341: 977.
    1. Trevena LJ, Irwig L, Barratt A (2008) Randomized trial of a self-administered decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 15: 76–82.
    1. Kim YM, Davila C, Tellez C, Kols A (2007) Evaluation of the World Health Organization's family planning decision-making tool: Improving health communication in Nicaragua. Patient Education & Counseling 66: 235–242.
    1. Kim YM, Putjuk F, Basuki E, Kols A (2003) Increasing patient participation in reproductive health consultations: an evaluation of “Smart Patient” coaching in Indonesia. Patient Education and Counseling 50: 113–122.
    1. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow M, Gillick MR, Cook EF, Shaykevich S, et al. (2008) Health literacy not race predicts end-of-life care preferences. Journal of Palliative Medicine 11: 754–762.
    1. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Carson KA, Bone LR, Larson SM, et al. (2011) A Randomized Trial to Improve Patient-Centered Care and Hypertension Control in Underserved Primary Care Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26: 1297–1304.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granch TS, Nefe NE, Spann SJ, et al... (2006) Entertainment education for informed breast cancer treatment decisions in low-literate women: development and initial evaluation of a patient decision aid. 3 ed. United States: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77098, USA. mariaj@bcm.edu. pp. 133–139.
    1. Berkman ND, Dewalt DA, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Lohr KN, et al... (2004) Literacy and health outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ): 1–8.
    1. Dewalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S, Lohr KN, Pignone MP (2004) Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 19: 1228–1239.
    1. Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM (2005) The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Med 118: 371–377.
    1. King JS, Eckman MH, Moulton BW (2011) The Potential of Shared Decision Making to Reduce Health Disparities. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39: 30–33.
    1. McCaffery KJ, Smith SK, Wolf M (2010) The challenge of shared decision making among patients with lower literacy: a framework for research and development. Med Decis Making 30: 35–44.
    1. McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, et al. (2012) The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: A randomized experimental study. Medical Decision Making 32: 532–544.
    1. Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, et al. (2013) Option Grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns 90: 207–212.
    1. Chan CV, Kaufman DR (2011) A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J Med Internet Res 13: e94.
    1. Polacek GN, Ramos MC, Ferrer RL (2007) Breast cancer disparities and decision-making among U.S. women. Patient Educ Couns 65: 158–165.
    1. Smith SK, Dixon A, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ (2009) Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups. Soc Sci Med 69: 1805–1812.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa