skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Patient Decision Aids to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2020-02, Vol.135 (2), p.444 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

EISSN: 1873-233X ;DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003664 ;PMID: 31923056

Digital Resources/Online E-Resources

  • Title:
    Patient Decision Aids to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
  • Author: Poprzeczny, Amanda J ; Stocking, Katie ; Showell, Marian ; Duffy, James M N
  • Subjects: Decision Making, Shared ; Decision Support Techniques ; Female ; Gynecology - methods ; Humans ; Obstetrics - methods ; Patient Participation ; Pregnancy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Is Part Of: Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2020-02, Vol.135 (2), p.444
  • Description: To assess the effectiveness of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in obstetrics and gynecology. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialized register, CINAHL, and EMBASE from 1946 to July 2019. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids with usual clinical practice or a control intervention. Thirty-five randomized controlled trials, which reported data from 9,790 women, were included. Patient decision aids were evaluated within a wide range of clinical scenarios relevant to obstetrics and gynecology, including contraception, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, and pelvic organ prolapse. Study characteristics and quality were recorded for each study. The meta-analysis was based on random-effects methods for pooled data. A standardized mean difference of 0.2 is considered small, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. When compared with usual clinical practice, the use of patient decision aids reduced decisional conflict (standardized mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.36, to -0.11; 19 trials; 4,624 women) and improved patient knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 17 trials; 4,375 women). There was no difference in patient anxiety (standardized mean difference -0.04; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06; 12 trials; 2,714 women) or satisfaction (standardized mean difference 0.17; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24; 6 trials; 2,718 women). Patient decision aids are effective in facilitating shared decision making and can be helpful in clinical practice to support patient centered care informed by the best evidence. PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews, www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/89953, CRD42018089953.
  • Publisher: United States
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: EISSN: 1873-233X
    DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003664
    PMID: 31923056
  • Source: MEDLINE
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait