Decision aids to improve informed decision-making in pregnancy care: a systematic review

被引:95
|
作者
Vlemmix, F. [1 ]
Warendorf, J. K. [1 ]
Rosman, A. N. [1 ]
Kok, M. [1 ]
Mol, B. W. J. [1 ]
Morris, J. M. [2 ]
Nassar, N. [3 ]
机构
[1] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, NL-1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Sydney, Royal N Shore Hosp, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Kolling Inst Med Res, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
关键词
Decision aids; informed decision making; obstetrics; pregnancy health care; systematic review; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; FETAL ABNORMALITIES; PRENATAL-DIAGNOSIS; QUALITY; SUPPORT; CHILDBIRTH; LEAFLET; CHOICES; BIRTH; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1111/1471-0528.12060
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background Rapid development in health care has resulted in an increasing number of screening and treatment options. Consequently, there is an urgency to provide people with relevant information about benefits and risks of healthcare options in an unbiased way. Decision aids help people to make decisions by providing unbiased non-directive research evidence about all treatment options. Objective To determine the effectiveness of decision aids to improve informed decision making in pregnancy care. Search strategy We searched MEDLINE (19532011), EMBASE (19802011), CENTRAL (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library; 2011, Issue 4), Psycinfo (18062011) and Research Registers of ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.controlled-trials.com). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing decision aids in addition to standard care. The study population needed to be pregnant women making actual decisions concerning their pregnancy. Data collection and analysis Two independent researchers extracted data on quality of the randomised controlled trial (GRADE criteria), quality of the decision aid (IPDAS criteria), and outcome measures. Data analysis was undertaken by assessing group differences at first follow up after the interventions. Main results Ten randomised controlled trials could be included. Pooled analyses showed that decision aids significantly increased knowledge, (weighted mean difference 11.06, 95% confidence interval 4.8517.27), decreased decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference -3.66, 95% confidence interval -6.65 to -0.68) and decreased anxiety (weighted mean difference -1.56, 95% confidence interval -2.75 to -0.43). Conclusions Our systematic review showed the positive effect of decision aids on informed decision making in pregnancy care. Future studies should focus on increasing the uptake of decision aids in clinical practice by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation.
引用
收藏
页码:257 / 266
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews
    Park, Myonghwa
    Doan, Thao Thi-Thu
    Jung, Jihye
    Giap, Thi-Thanh-Tinh
    Kim, Jinju
    NURSING & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2024, 26 (01)
  • [2] Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care A systematic review
    Coronado-Vazquez, Valle
    Canet-Fajas, Carlota
    Teresa Delgado-Marroquin, Maria
    Magallon-Botaya, Rosa
    Romero-Martin, Macarena
    Gomez-Salgado, Juan
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (32) : E21389
  • [3] The effect of the Internet on decision-making during pregnancy: a systematic review
    Tastekin Ouyaba, Ayse
    Infal Kesim, Selma
    ARCHIVES OF WOMENS MENTAL HEALTH, 2021, 24 (02) : 205 - 215
  • [4] Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review
    Gruene, Britta
    Kriegmair, Maximilian C.
    Lenhart, Maximilian
    Michel, Maurice S.
    Huber, Johannes
    Koether, Anja K.
    Buedenbender, Bjorn
    Alpers, Georg W.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (03): : 851 - 869
  • [5] A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer
    Zdenkowski, Nicholas
    Butow, Phyllis
    Tesson, Stephanie
    Boyle, Frances
    BREAST, 2016, 26 : 31 - 45
  • [6] Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review
    Kennedy, Kate
    Adelson, Pamela
    Fleet, Julie
    Steen, Mary
    McKellar, Lois
    Eckert, Marion
    Peters, Micahdj
    MIDWIFERY, 2020, 81
  • [7] Computerised decision aids: A systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts
    Sheehan, Joanne
    Sherman, Kerry A.
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2012, 88 (01) : 69 - 86
  • [8] Decision Coaching to Prepare Patients for Making Health Decisions: A Systematic Review of Decision Coaching in Trials of Patient Decision Aids
    Stacey, Dawn
    Kryworuchko, Jennifer
    Bennett, Carol
    Murray, Mary Ann
    Mullan, Sarah
    Legare, France
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (03) : E22 - E33
  • [9] Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wu, Chih-Jung
    Yeh, Tzu-Pei
    Chu, Ginger
    Ho, Ya-Fang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2024, 33 (07) : 2732 - 2754
  • [10] A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of decision aids for vaccination decision-making
    Vujovich-Dunn, Cassandra
    Kaufman, Jessica
    King, Catherine
    Skinner, S. Rachel
    Wand, Handan
    Guy, Rebecca
    Leask, Julie
    VACCINE, 2021, 39 (28) : 3655 - 3665