Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and
Marie-Anne Durand1, Lewis Carpenter1, Hayley Dolan1
1Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
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.
Related Concept Videos
01:29Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions
01:30Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...
01:03Nursing Interventions I: Taxonomy of Nursing Interventions
A nursing intervention is a treatment or action based on scientific concepts and knowledge from the nursing, behavioral, and physical sciences. Identifying and prioritizing nursing interventions based on the desired outcome...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:26Methods Of Healthcare Delivery System
Managed Care System:
The managed care system is designed to control the cost while maintaining the quality of care. The patient's care from admission to discharge is planned by the primary care provider or the case manager, also known as the gatekeeper. In a managed care system, the number of care providers is...