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
  • [41] Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review
    Li, Xuejing
    Yang, Dan
    Meng, Meiqi
    Zhao, Junqiang
    Yin, Yiyi
    Wang, Hefang
    Zhang, Xiaoyan
    Liu, Qian
    Li, Mengdi
    Liu, Jianping
    Hao, Yufang
    FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 11
  • [42] Patient readiness for shared decision making: A scoping review of qualitative literature
    Kunneman, Marleen
    Laidsaar-Powell, Rebekah
    Lie, Hanne
    de Boer, Joyce
    Moaddine, Saida
    Stiggelbout, Anne
    Pieterse, Arwen
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2023, 109 : 9 - 9
  • [43] Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences
    Laura A. Shinkunas
    Caleb J. Klipowicz
    Erica M. Carlisle
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20
  • [44] Training Interventions to Equip Health Care Professionals With Shared Decision-Making Skills: A Systematic Scoping Review
    Coates, Dominiek
    Clerke, Teena
    JOURNAL OF CONTINUING EDUCATION IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2020, 40 (02) : 100 - 119
  • [45] Communication, Shared Decision-making and Goals of Care in the ICU through Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review
    de Aquino, Vivian W.
    da Silveira, Gabriela F.
    Boniatti, Marcio M.
    Terres, Mellina da S.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 28 (10) : 977 - 987
  • [46] Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
    Anaya, Yohualli
    Do, Diana
    Christensen, Leslie
    Schrager, Sarina
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2025, 23 (02) : 108 - 116
  • [47] SHARED DECISION MAKING AND PATIENT DECISION AIDS
    Shaffer, Victoria
    Lipstein, Ellen
    ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2021, 55 : S523 - S523
  • [48] Decision aids and shared decision making in urogynecology
    Marques, Felisha
    Josloff, Kevan
    Hung, Kristin
    Wakamatsu, May
    Sepucha, Karen R.
    MENOPAUSE-THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MENOPAUSE SOCIETY, 2022, 29 (02): : 178 - 183
  • [49] Decision aids, empowerment, and shared decision making
    Hargraves, Ian
    Montori, Victor M.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 349
  • [50] 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