Helping pregnant women make better decisions: a systematic review of the benefits of patient decision aids in obstetrics

Abstract

ObjectivesPatient decision aids can be used to support pregnant women engaging in shared decisions, but little is known about their effects in obstetrics. The authors aimed to evaluate the effects of patient decision aids designed for pregnant women on clinical and psychosocial outcomes.DesignSystematic review. Data on all outcomes were extracted and summarised. All studies were critically appraised for potential sources of bias and, when possible to obtain, the reported decision aids were evaluated. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of outcomes in primary studies and the small number of studies.Data sourcesElectronic searches were performed using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Medion databases from inception until December 2010. Reference lists of all included articles were also examined and key experts contacted.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligibility criteria included randomised controlled trials, which reported on patient decision aids for women facing any treatment decision in pregnancy published in English. Studies evaluating health education material that did not address women's values and preferences were excluded.ResultsPatient decision aids have been developed for decisions about prenatal testing, vaginal birth after Caesarean section, external cephalic version and labour analgesia. Use of decision aids is associated with a number of positive effects including reduced anxiety, lower decisional conflict, improved knowledge, improved satisfaction and increased perception of having made an informed choice.ConclusionsPatient decision aids have the potential to improve obstetric care. However, currently the evidence base is limited by the small number of studies, the quality of the studies and because they involved heterogeneous decision aids, patient groups and outcomes.

Decision-making regarding place of birth in high-risk pregnancy: a qualitative study

“…it has been supported by knowledge, thought and feeling on the part of the decision maker, the outcome decision must also be regarded as high quality [11]. This can still be the case if the decision does not agree with available evidence but does represent an individual's values and beliefs [28]. Typically, decisions around risk have been categorised as rational and irrational according to the judgement of the rater, however Zinn (2008) argues most decisions fall along a spectrum between these two extremes, and intuition and emotion are trusted features of the majority of decisions [29].…”

Keeping it Natural: Does Persuasive Magazine Content Have an Effect on Young Women’s Intentions for Birth?

“…Examples of bias include privileging obstetric-led care (in which the obstetrician is the primary provider of care during pregnancy and birth; Sandall et al 2013) with little or no mention of other models of care, and overstating the efficacy of pharmacological pain relief in birth. Information biased toward medicalized birth may restrict women's awareness of all their maternity care options (Dugas et al 2012;Say, Robson, and Thomson 2011), influence women's perceived risk and attitudes toward non-medicalized birth, and subsequently affect their preferences, intentions, and decision making about their care.…”

A design process for using normative models in shared decision making: a case study in the context of prenatal testing

“…In addition, a simulation of physician choice for different skills and prices, such as that presented in Table , may be used during routine office visits as a baseline for patient–physician communication, not only about the trade‐off between risk and cost but also about the perception of risk, accuracy of amniocentesis and consequences of foetus loss. This process may also be associated with such positive effects as reduced anxiety and improved satisfaction …”