Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40620572›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review.

Christin Ellermann, Jana Sophie Hinneburg, Christoph Wilhelm, Felix Georg Rebitschek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christin EllermannHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-8260
Jana Sophie HinneburgHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Christoph WilhelmHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Felix Georg RebitschekHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: A systematic review of studies evaluating evidence-based health information (EBHI) and patient decision aids (PtDAs) was conducted in order to ascertain the extent to which inequity-producing factors have been considered, and in how far people from different sociodemographic groups benefit equally from them in terms of informed decision-making. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: Systematic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PMC, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and PSYNDEX from inception to May 2023. Eligibility criteria: RCTs of EBHI and PtDAs that take into account factors associated with unequal opportunities as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. Data extraction and synthesis: Information on the effect of these factors was extracted and analysed in terms of outcomes relevant to the decision-making process. Results: Few studies have examined the impact of EBHI/PtDAs on outcomes relevant to informed 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 disadvantaged status could be found two times and a negative association in three studies. Overall, most of the studies found no difference in knowledge gain, decision conflict and shared decision-making between those advantaged and disadvantaged in terms of ethnicity, gender, education, age, income, health literacy, numeracy or socioeconomic status. 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. Conclusion: EBHI and PtDAs have been shown to be effective in promoting decision-making and thus in improving healthcare. To improve healthcare 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/PtDAs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018103456.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPublic HealthSociodemographic FactorsSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40620572
PMCPMC12228443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.