Effects of collaborative clinical visit agenda-setting interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Agenda-setting is a fundamental patient-centered communication practice in which a clinician works with a patient to elicit, propose, and organize topics for discussion during a clinical encounter. Various agenda-setting interventions have been developed, including patient-facing tools and clinician training, but their effects have not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to determine the effects of these interventions on encounter, patient, care partner, and clinician outcomes.

We searched grey literature and seven databases, including PubMed, from inception through July 2025 for randomized and non-randomized comparative studies of interventions designed to promote or improve clinical visit agenda-setting. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. We assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. We conducted random effects meta-analyses when outcomes were sufficiently comparable, assessed heterogeneity using I ² , and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses examined study design, adjustment status, and intervention structure.

Twenty-nine articles describing 22 unique studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 randomized and nine non-randomized studies. Agenda-setting interventions increased the occurrence of agenda-setting (risk ratio 5.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06 to 14.28, I ² =34.6%) and favored the intervention for concerns addressed when measured as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.57, I ² =65.3%) and overall clinician satisfaction (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78, I ² =0.0%). There were no clear differences in the number of concerns raised (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61, I ² =59.6%), visit duration (MD 0.64 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.12, I ² =51.4%), or overall patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.15, I ² =47.0%). Potentially important heterogeneity was present for four of these six outcomes. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses did not provide clear evidence that effects varied by study design, adjustment status, or intervention structure. Risk of bias was often high, serious, or critical, and certainty of evidence was low or very low for all pooled outcomes.

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive synthesis of clinical visit agenda-setting interventions. Such interventions may increase the occurrence of agenda-setting and the extent to which patient concerns are addressed without increasing visit length. However, the certainty of evidence was low or very low, and the available evidence does not establish a superior intervention structure.