IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v74y2012i12p1968-1978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision aid tools to support women's decision making in pregnancy and birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dugas, Marylène
  • Shorten, Allison
  • Dubé, Eric
  • Wassef, Maggy
  • Bujold, Emmanuel
  • Chaillet, Nils

Abstract

Support for a model of shared medical decision making, where women and their care providers discuss risks and benefits of their different options, reveal their preferences, and jointly make a decision, is a growing expectation in obstetric care. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different decision aid tools compared to regular care for women facing several options in the specific field of obstetric care. We included published studies about interventions designed to aid mothers' decision making and provide information about obstetrical treatment or screening options. Following a search of electronic databases for articles published in English and French from 1994 to 2010, we found ten studies that met the inclusion criteria. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we found that all decision aid tools, except for Decision Trees, facilitated significant increases in knowledge. The Computer-based Information Tool, the Decision Analysis Tools, Individual Counseling and Group Counseling intervention presented significant results in reducing anxiety levels. The Decision Analysis Tools and the Computer-based Information tool were associated with a reduction in levels of decisional conflict. The Decision Analysis Tool was the only tool that presented evidence of an impact on the final choice and final outcome. Decision aid tools can assist health professionals to provide information and counseling about choices during pregnancy and support women in shared decision making. The choice of a specific tool should depend on resources available to support their use as well as the specific decisions being faced by women, their health care setting and providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Dugas, Marylène & Shorten, Allison & Dubé, Eric & Wassef, Maggy & Bujold, Emmanuel & Chaillet, Nils, 2012. "Decision aid tools to support women's decision making in pregnancy and birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1968-1978.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:74:y:2012:i:12:p:1968-1978
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612001785
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annette M. O'Connor, 1995. "Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(1), pages 25-30, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen T. Hicklin & Julie S. Ivy & James R. Wilson & Fay Cobb Payton & Meera Viswanathan & Evan R. Myers, 2019. "Simulation model of the relationship between cesarean section rates and labor duration," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 635-657, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.
    2. Sharma, Dheeraj & Alford, Bruce L. & Bhuian, Shahid N. & Pelton, Lou E., 2009. "A higher-order model of risk propensity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 741-744, July.
    3. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    4. Reid, Allecia E. & Ferrer, Rebecca A. & Kadirvel, Sanjana & Biesecker, Barbara B. & Lewis, Katie L. & Biesecker, Leslie G. & Klein, William M.P., 2020. "Roles of attitudes and injunctive norms in decisional conflict and disclosure following receipt of genome sequencing results," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:74:y:2012:i:12:p:1968-1978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.