ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Evidence from the first Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) randomised controlled trial in India: SMAs increase the satisfaction, knowledge, and medication compliance of patients with glaucoma.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic outcomes among microfinance group members receiving community-based chronic disease care: Cluster randomized trial evidence from Kenya.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2024Trial
- Shared Medical Appointments and the Quintuple Aim of Health Care: A State of the Art Literature Review.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs), patients with similar conditions meet the physician together and each receives one-on-one attention. SMAs can improve outcomes and physician productivity. Yet privacy concerns have stymied adoption. In physician-deprived nations, patients' utility from improved access may outweigh their disutility from loss of privacy. Ours is to our knowledge the first SMA trial for any disease, in India, where doctors are scarce. In a 1,000-patient, single-site, randomized controlled trial at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, we compared SMAs and one-on-one appointments, over four successive visits, for patients with glaucoma. We examined patients' satisfaction, knowledge, intention-to-follow-up, follow-up rates, and medication compliance rates (primary outcomes) using intention-to-treat analysis. Of 1,034 patients invited between July 12, 2016 -July 19, 2018, 1,000 (96.7%) consented to participate, and were randomly assigned to either SMAs (NSMA = 500) or one-on-one appointments (N1-1 = 500). Patients who received SMAs showed higher satisfaction (MeanSMA = 4.955 (SD 0.241), Mean1-1 = 4.920 (SD 0.326); difference in means 0.035; 95% CI, 0.017-0.054, p = 0.0002) and knowledge (MeanSMA = 3.416 (SD 1.340), Mean1-1 = 3.267 (SD 1.492); difference in means 0.149; 95% CI, 0.057-0.241, p = 0.002) than patients who received one-on-one appointments. Across conditions, there was no difference in patients' intention-to-follow-up (MeanSMA = 4.989 (SD 0.118), Mean1-1 = 4.986 (SD 0.149); difference in means 0.003; 95% CI, -0.006-0.012, p = 0.481) and actual follow-up rates (MeanSMA = 87.5% (SD 0.372), Mean1-1 = 88.7% (SD 0.338); difference in means -0.012; 95% CI, -0.039-0.015, p = 0.377). Patients who received SMAs exhibited higher medication compliance rates (MeanSMA = 97.0% (SD 0.180), Mean1-1 = 94.9% (SD 0.238); difference in means 0.020; 95% CI, 0.004-0.036, p = 0.013). SMAs improved satisfaction, learning, and medication compliance, without compromising follow-up rates or measured clinical outcomes. Peer interruptions were negatively correlated with patient satisfaction in early-trial SMAs and positively correlated with patient satisfaction in later-trial SMAs. Trial registration: The trial was registered with Clinical Trials Registry of India (https://ctri.nic.in/) with reference no. REF/2016/11/012659 and registration no. CTRI/2018/02/011998.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.