ArticleBMJ public health2025
Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Decision Aids for Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Pooled it
- Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.