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

被引:94
|
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
  • [31] Decision support toots to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review
    Chima, Sophie
    Reece, Jeanette C.
    Milley, Kristi
    Milton, Shakira
    McIntosh, Jennifer G.
    Emery, Jon D.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2019, 69 (689): : E809 - E818
  • [32] DECISION AIDS FOR LOCAL DECISION-MAKING - DISCUSSION
    BRODER, JM
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1981, 63 (05) : 988 - 989
  • [33] Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis
    Rabben, Jannicke
    Vivat, Bella
    Fossum, Mariann
    Rohde, Gudrun Elin
    [J]. PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2024, 38 (04) : 406 - 422
  • [34] Experiences in the Decision-Making Regarding the Place of Care of the Elderly: A Systematic Review
    Serrano-Gemes, Gema
    Serrano-del-Rosal, Rafael
    Rich-Ruiz, Manuel
    [J]. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, 2021, 11 (02)
  • [35] Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
    Mayer, Susanne
    Kiss, Noemi
    Laszewska, Agata
    Simon, Judit
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (08):
  • [36] Systematic review of prediction models for postacute care destination decision-making
    Kennedy, Erin E.
    Bowles, Kathryn H.
    Aryal, Subhash
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2021, 29 (01) : 176 - 186
  • [37] Women's experiences of decision-making and informed choice about pregnancy and birth care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research
    Yuill, Cassandra
    McCourt, Christine
    Cheyne, Helen
    Leister, Nathalie
    [J]. BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [38] Women’s experiences of decision-making and informed choice about pregnancy and birth care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research
    Cassandra Yuill
    Christine McCourt
    Helen Cheyne
    Nathalie Leister
    [J]. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 20
  • [39] Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review
    Belita, Emily
    Squires, Janet E.
    Yost, Jennifer
    Ganann, Rebecca
    Burnett, Trish
    Dobbins, Maureen
    [J]. BMC NURSING, 2020, 19 (01)
  • [40] Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review
    Emily Belita
    Janet E. Squires
    Jennifer Yost
    Rebecca Ganann
    Trish Burnett
    Maureen Dobbins
    [J]. BMC Nursing, 19