Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review

被引:25
|
作者
Kennedy, Kate [1 ]
Adelson, Pamela [1 ,2 ]
Fleet, Julie [2 ]
Steen, Mary [2 ]
McKellar, Lois [2 ]
Eckert, Marion [1 ]
Peters, Micahdj [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ South Australia, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Div Hlth Sci, Rosemary Bryant AO Res Ctr, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
[2] Univ South Australia, Mothers Babies & Families Hlth Res Grp, Rosemary Bryant AO Res Ctr, Sch Nursing & Midwifery,Div Hlth Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
CESAREAN-SECTION; WOMEN; TRIAL; INFORMATION; AUSTRALIA; DELIVERY; CHOICES; BIRTH; MODE;
D O I
10.1016/j.midw.2019.102589
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Shared decision making in pregnancy, labour, and birth is vital to woman-centred care and despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of shared decision making in pregnancy care, practical uptake has been slow. Design and Aim: This scoping review aimed to identify and describe effective and appropriate shared decision aids designed to be provided to women in the antenatal period to assist them in making informed decisions for both pregnancy and birth. Two questions guided the enquiry: (i) what shared decision aids for pregnancy and perinatal care are of appropriate quality and feasibility for application in Australia? (ii) which of these decision aids have been shown to be effective and appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally diverse women, or those with low literacy? Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to conduct the review. Five key databases and selected grey literature sources were examined. English language evidence from Australia, Europe, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America produced from 2009 was eligible for inclusion, checked against apriori inclusion criteria, and assessed for quality and usability using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Results: From a total of 5,209 search results, 35 sources of evidence reporting on 27 decision aids were included following title/abstract and full-text review. Most of the decision aids concerned decisions around birth (52%, n = 14) or antenatal screening 37% (n = 10). The quality of the decision aids was moderate to high, with most communicating risks, benefits, and choice pathways via a mix of Likert-style scales, quizzes, and pictures or graphs. Use of decision aids resulted in significant reductions in decisional conflict and increased knowledge. The format of decision aids appeared to have no effect on these outcomes, indicating that paper-based are as effective as video- or audio-based decision aids. Eleven decision aids were suitable for low literacy or low health literacy women, and six were either developed for culturally diverse groups or have been translated into other languages. No decision aids found were specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Conclusions and implications for practice: The 27 decision aids are readily adoptable into westernised healthcare settings and can be used by midwives or multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with women. Decision aids are designed to support women, and families to arrive at informed choices and supplement the decision-making process rather than to replace consumer-healthcare professional interaction. If given before an appointment, high quality decision aids can increase a woman's familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge. (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] 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)
  • [32] More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making: A scoping review
    Humphries, Brittany
    Leon-Garcia, Montserrat
    Quispe, Ena Nino de Guzman
    Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
    Valli, Claudia
    Pacheco-Barrios, Kevin
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Mirabi, Susan
    Eckman, Mark H.
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Bates, Shannon M.
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Xie, Feng
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 141 : 106 - 120
  • [33] Shared decision-making in persons living with dementia: A scoping review
    Mattos, Meghan K.
    Gibson, Jessie S.
    Wilson, Dan
    Jepson, Laura
    Ahn, Soojung
    Williams, Ishan C.
    DEMENTIA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2023, 22 (04): : 875 - 909
  • [34] Shared decision making embedded in the undergraduate medical curriculum: A scoping review
    Durand, Marie-Anne
    DiMilia, Peter R.
    Song, Julia
    Yen, Renata W.
    Barr, Paul J.
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (11):
  • [35] Professional centred shared decision making:: Patient decision aids in practice in primary care
    Watson, Duika Burges
    Thomson, Richard G.
    Murtagh, Madeleine J.
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2008, 8 (1)
  • [36] Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review
    Engels, Noel
    de Graav, Gretchen N.
    van der Nat, Paul
    van den Dorpel, Marinus
    Stiggelbout, Anne M.
    Bos, Willem Jan
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [37] Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences
    Shinkunas, Laura A.
    Klipowicz, Caleb J.
    Carlisle, Erica M.
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [38] Interprofessional education for shared decision making in drug therapy: a scoping review
    Detoni, Kirla Barbosa
    Andre, Ariane Lopes
    Rezende, Cristiane de Paula
    Furtado, Barbara Taciana
    Medina Mendonca, Simone de Araujo
    Ramalho-de-Oliveira, Djenane
    JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE, 2023, 37 (03) : 491 - 503
  • [39] Perceptions of Shared Decision Making and Decision Aids Among Rural Primary Care Clinicians
    King, Valerie J.
    Davis, Melinda M.
    Gorman, Paul N.
    Rugge, J. Bruin
    Fagnan, L. J.
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (04) : 636 - 644
  • [40] Professional centred shared decision making: Patient decision aids in practicein primary care
    Duika Burges Watson
    Richard G Thomson
    Madeleine J Murtagh
    BMC Health Services Research, 8