Effectiveness of shared medical appointments delivered in primary care for improving health outcomes in patients with long-term conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of shared medical appointments (SMAs) compared with one-to-one appointments in primary care for improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services by people with one or more long-term conditions (LTCs). DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature. DATA SOURCES: Six databases, including MEDLINE and Web of Science, were searched 2013-2023. Relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials were included. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of SMAs delivered in a primary care setting involving adults over 18 years with one or more LTCs. Studies were excluded if the SMA did not include one-to-one patient-clinician time. All countries were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible. RESULTS: Twenty-nine unique trials were included. SMA models varied in terms of components, mode of delivery and target population. Most trials recruited patients with a single LTC, most commonly diabetes (n=16). There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=-0.086, 95% CI=-0.16 to -0.02, n=10) (p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use. For example, no difference between SMAs and usual care was found for admissions to emergency departments at follow-up (d=-0.094, 95% CI=-0.27 to 0.08, n=6, p=0.289). CONCLUSIONS: There was a little difference in the effectiveness of SMAs compared with usual care in terms of health outcomes or healthcare service use in the short-term (range 12 weeks to 24 months). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should include a wider array of LTCs, standardised outcome measures and more details on SMA components to help inform economic evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173084.

Falsification of home rapid antigen lateral flow tests during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were used to regulate access to work, education, social activities, and travel. However, falsification of home LFT results was a concern. Falsification of test results during an ongoing pandemic is a sensitive issue. Consequently, respondents may not answer truthfully to questions about LFT falsification behaviours (FBs) when asked directly. Indirect questioning techniques such as the Extended Crosswise model (ECWM) can provide more reliable prevalence estimates of sensitive behaviors than direct questioning. Here we report the prevalence of LFT FBs in a representative sample in England (n = 1577) using direct questioning (DQ) and the ECWM. We examine the role of demographic and psychological variables as predictors of LFT FBs. We show that the prevalence estimates of the FBs in the DQ condition were significantly lower than the ECWM estimates, e.g., reporting a negative result without conducting a test: 5.7% DQ vs 18.4% ECWM. Moral norms, subjective norms, anticipated regret, perception of risk to self, and trust in government predicted some of the FBs. Indirect questioning techniques can help provide more realistic and higher quality data about compliance with behavioural regulations to government and public health agencies.