Dataset Information

The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Women with pre-existing morbidity arising from medical conditions or previous caesarean section are at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to women without such morbidity. Women often face complex pregnancy-related decision-making that may be characterized by conflicting maternal and perinatal priorities. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials of decision aids to evaluate whether they are effective at reducing decisional conflict scores and to evaluate what type of decision aids are most effective for women with pre-existing morbidity in pregnancy.

Methods

We searched Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO) from the earliest entries until September 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials comparing patient decision aids for women with pre-existing morbidity with usual clinical practice or a control intervention. Study characteristics and Jadad risk of bias was recorded. Meta-analysis by pre-existing morbidity type was performed using Stata 17 and the data was presented with a Forest Plot. Random effects models were used to calculate summary estimates if there was substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity and post mean DCS scores were described in a sensitivity analysis and presented as a line graph, to improve clinical interpretation of results.. A narrative synthesis of the selected studies evaluated what type of decision aid works and for in what circumstances.

Results

Ten randomised controlled trials, which reported data from 4028 women, were included. Patient decision aids were evaluated in women with pre-existing morbidity who were undertaking pregnancy-related decision-making. Patient decision aids reduced decisional conflict scale scores by an additional - 3.7, 95% Confidence Interval - 5.9% to - 1.6%) compared to the control group. Women with pre-existing medical conditions were more conflicted at baseline and had greater reductions in decisional conflict scale score (mean difference vs. control group: - 6.6%; 95% CI - 9.8% to - 3.3%), in contrast to those with previous caesarean section (mean difference - 2.4%; 95% CI - 4.8% to - 0.1%). There was limited evidence on the effect of decision aids on health outcomes. Decision aids reduced unwanted variation in decision-making support across maternity settings.

Conclusion

Patient decision aids are effective tools to support personalised care planning and informed decision-making in women with pre-existing morbidity. Women with pre-existing medical morbidity were more conflicted at baseline and were more likely to benefit from decision aids. Adoption of aids in this population may lead to improve adherence and health outcomes, warranting further research.

SUBMITTER: Whybrow R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801107 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.

Project description:BackgroundWomen with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with poor IBD-specific reproductive knowledge experience more childlessness and fear of IBD medications in pregnancy. The Pregnancy in IBD Decision Aid (PIDA), developed by an international multidisciplinary team, offers personalized online decision support regarding pregnancy in IBD.AimsAssess the impact of PIDA on quality of reproductive decision-making and pregnancy-related knowledge among preconception (PC) and pregnant patients with IBD, and evaluate acceptability to patients and clinicians.MethodsPC and pregnant patients with IBD aged 18-45 completed questionnaires pre- and post-PIDA to assess quality of decision-making (Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS); Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSES) and IBD-in-pregnancy knowledge (Crohn's and Colitis Pregnancy Knowledge Score (CCPKnow)). Paired t test assessed for differences pre- and post-PIDA. Patients and clinicians completed acceptability surveys.ResultsDCS and DSES were completed by 74 patients (42 Crohn's disease, 32 ulcerative colitis); 41 PC and 33 pregnant. DCS improved significantly post-PIDA in PC patients regarding pregnancy planning (t(40) = 4.83, p < 0.0001, Cohen's dz = 0.75) and in pregnant patients regarding medication management (t(32) = 2.37, p = 0.0242, dz = 0.41). DSES for PC patients improved significantly post-PIDA (t(40) = -3.56, p = 0.001, dz = -0.56). CCPKnow improved significantly post-PIDA in PC (t(42) = 4.93, p < 0.0001, dz = -0.75) and pregnant patients (t(32) = 5.1, p < 0.0001, dz = -0.89). PIDA was deemed optimal for length, readability, and content amount and considered highly useful by patients (n = 73) and clinicians (n = 14).ConclusionsPatients using PIDA developed an improved quality of reproductive decision-making and IBD-in-pregnancy knowledge. PIDA is an accessible tool that can empower women with IBD to make values-congruent, evidence-based decisions regarding pregnancy and may reduce voluntary childlessness.

Project description:ObjectiveDesign and pilot test a new decision making tool for women with physical disabilities (impairment of physical function due to chronic conditions) considering pregnancy.Data sources and study settingQuantitative surveys and qualitative interviews were collected from participants living in the community.Study designClinical guidelines and survey and focus group data about pregnancy informational and decisional needs guided content development. The tool was pilot tested in a 12-week trial with participants with physical disabilities considering or actively planning a pregnancy. Feasibility outcomes were acceptability, implementation, and demand (collected at end of the trial); preliminary efficacy focused on decisional conflict and readiness (baseline, 6 weeks, and end of trial).Data collectionSurvey data were collected using an online form. One-on-one interviews were conducted to learn more about experience using the tool.Principal findingsThirty eight participants with mild, moderate, or severe physical disabilities participated. Feasibility outcomes indicated that the tool provided participants with information, guiding questions, and helped them to consider multiple aspects of the decision about pregnancy. Most participants responded positively to the new decision making tool, finding it easy to use and the information balanced. Feedback highlighted opportunity for improvement, such as more specific information, peer stories, and the limitations of a paper format. There was significant linear effect of time, with increased decisional certainty and readiness, values clarity, and decisional support (partial η2 [90% CI] = 0.310 [0.08, 0.46], 0.435 [0.19, 0.60], 0.134 [0, 0.29], 0.178 [0.01, 0.35], respectively). Decisional certainty and readiness had high observed power (96.7% and 99.3%, respectively) with lower observed power for clarity and support (60.6% and 75.1%, respectively).ConclusionsThe new tool shows promise for supporting women with physical disabilities in navigating pregnancy decision making. Future development of complementary strategies to support health care providers will help improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.

Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.