Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities. To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. CINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012. We included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group. We included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective. Results indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

Aim: The aim of this paper is to increase awareness of the prevalence and cost of psychiatric and neurological disorders (brain disorders) in the UK. Method: UK data for 18 brain disorders were extracted from a systematic review of European epidemiological data and prevalence rates and the costs of each disorder were summarized (2010 values). Results: There were approximately 45 million cases of brain disorders in the UK, with a cost of €134 billion per annum. The most prevalent were headache, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, mood disorders and somatoform disorders. However, the five most costly disorders (€ million) were: dementia: €22,164; psychotic disorders: €16,717; mood disorders: €19,238; addiction: €11,719; anxiety disorders: €11,687. Apart from psychosis, these five disorders ranked amongst those with the lowest direct medical expenditure per subject (<€3000). The approximate breakdown of costs was: 50% indirect costs, 25% direct non-medical and 25% direct healthcare costs. Discussion: The prevalence and cost of UK brain disorders is likely to increase given the ageing population. Translational neurosciences research has the potential to develop more effective treatments but is underfunded. Addressing the clinical and economic challenges posed by brain disorders requires a coordinated effort at an EU and national level to transform the current scientific, healthcare and educational agenda.

Objective: To assess whether there have been any secular changes in orthopedic interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) since 1986, as examined in 2 early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) inception cohorts with up to 25 years of followup.Methods: The study examined orthopedic data from the UK Early RA Study (1986–1999, 9 centers; n = 1,465) and the UK Early RA Network (2002–2012, 23 centers; n = 1,236) with linkage to national data sets (Hospital Episode Statistics, National Joint Registry, and Office of National Statistics). Clinical and laboratory measures and hand and foot radiographs were standardized and obtained yearly in both cohorts. The use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), corticosteroids, and biologic therapies reflected the contemporary conventional practices and guidelines of the time frames examined. Recruitment years were grouped into 6 periods, and interventions were classified into major, intermediate, and minor categories.Results: A total of 1,602 orthopedic surgical procedures were performed in 770 patients (29%) over a maximum of 25 years of followup. The 25‐year cumulative incidence rate of major interventions was 21.7% (range 19.4–24.0%), and that of intermediate interventions was 21.5% (range 17.8–25.5%). There was a decline in the 10‐year cumulative incidence of intermediate surgeries over time (P < 0.001), but not of major/minor surgery. This decline coincided with a gradual shift from sequential monotherapy to combination DMARD therapies and biologic agents in recent recruitment periods.Conclusion: Orthopedic surgery is an important and common outcome in RA. Only the rates of hand/foot surgery showed a consistent decline from 1986 to 2011. Possible explanations include differences in the pathophysiologic processes affecting the joints, variations in the responses to therapy between large‐joint and small‐joint destructive processes, and changes in service provision and thresholds for surgery over time.