Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review on the equality of their effectiveness
Ellermann, C.; Hinneburg, J.; Wilhelm, C.; Rebitschek, F.
Show abstract
ObjectivesSystematic review of studies evaluating evidence-based health information (EBHI) and decision aids (DAs) in terms of the extent to which inequity-producing factors have been considered and how these factors affect access to health-related information and informed decision-making. Study designSystematic review of randomised controlled trials. MethodsSystematic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and PSYNDEX from inception to May 2023 to identify evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs that take into account factors associated with unequal opportunities as defined by PROGRESS Plus. Information on the effect of these factors was extracted and analysed in terms of outcomes relevant to the decision-making process. ResultsFew studies have examined the impact of EBHI/DAs on outcomes relevant to decision-making with respect to inequity-producing factors. In our final synthesis,12 studies were included. A positive association between the effectiveness of the intervention and the disadvantage status could be found twice and a negative association in three studies. Overall, most of the studies found no difference in knowledge gain, decision conflict and shared decision-making (SDM) between those advantaged and disadvantaged in terms of ethnicity, gender, education, age, income, health literacy, numeracy or socioeconomic status (SES). However, few trials examined this effect and the effect was considered solely in subgroup analyses that were probably underpowered, so asymmetries between these groups may not have been detected in the existing designs. ConclusionEBHI and DAs have been shown to be effective in promoting decision-making and thus in improving health care. To improve health care equitably, greater attention needs to be paid to methodological requirements in evaluations to fully capture potential differences in access to health-related information between individuals or in populations within the target groups of EBHI/DAs. PROSPERO registrationCRD42018103456 What is already known?O_LIThere is evidence that EBHI and DAs do not reach certain patient groups because while being developed and evaluated they do not adequately take into account differences in access to health-related information between different social groups. C_LIO_LIThere is insufficient evidence whether EBHI and DAs are equally effective for people with factors that are more or less associated with equal access to health information. C_LI What the study addsO_LIA systematic review of evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs to consider factors that lead to inequity and analysis of how these factors influence the intervention effects in terms of access to health-related information and outcomes relevant for decision-making. C_LI How this study might affect research, practice or policy?O_LIOur research makes a valuable contribution to more equitable health care by stressing critical inequality factors that may influence informed decision-making with the help of EBHI and DAs. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 93%
- Beyond social prescribing - the use of social return on investment (SROI) analysis in integrated health and social care interventions in England and Wales: a protocol for a systematic review 93%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 93%
- A potential impact of physical distancing on physical and mental health. A rapid narrative umbrella review of meta-analyses on the link between social isolation and health 93%
- Participatory research in health intervention studies involving migrants: a systematic review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 93%
- Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol 92%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials 92%
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 91%
- When do persuasive messages on vaccine safety steer COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and recommendations? Behavioral insights from a randomised controlled experiment in Malaysia 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.