Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:2
|
作者
Wong, Hong Yat Conrad [1 ,2 ]
Asim, Saba [1 ]
Feng, Qi [3 ]
Fu, Sherry Xiao-hong [1 ]
Sahota, Daljit Singh [4 ]
So, Po Lam [5 ]
Dong, Dong [1 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Queen Mary Univ London, Barts & London Sch Med & Dent, London, England
[3] Univ Oxford, Nuffield Dept Populat Hlth, Oxford, England
[4] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[5] Tuen Mun Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[6] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Shenzhen Res Inst, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
[7] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Prince Wales Hosp, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Shatin, 4-F Sch Publ Hlth Bldg, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
informed decision-making; interactive digital decision aids; pregnancy; prenatal screening; systematic review; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; INFORMATION; PREGNANCY; CARE;
D O I
10.2196/37953
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Increasing prenatal screening options and limited consultation time have made it difficult for pregnant women to participate in shared decision-making. Interactive digital decision aids (IDDAs) could integrate interactive technology into health care to a facilitate higher-quality decision-making process. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of IDDAs on pregnant women's decision-making regarding prenatal screening. Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included studies until August 2021. We included the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of IDDAs (fulfilling basic criteria of International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration and these were interactive and digital) as an adjunct to standard care with standard care alone and involved pregnant women themselves in prenatal screening decision-making. Data on primary outcomes, that is, knowledge and decisional conflict, and secondary outcomes were extracted, and meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup analysis based on knowledge was performed. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Results: Eight RCTs were identified from 10,283 references, of which 7 were included in quantitative synthesis. Analyses showed that IDDAs increased knowledge (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-0.90) and decreased decisional conflict (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05). Substantial heterogeneity in knowledge was identified, which could not be completely resolved through subgroup analysis. Conclusions: IDDAs can improve certain aspects of decision-making in prenatal screening among pregnant women, but the results require cautious interpretation.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of decision aids for vaccination decision-making
    Vujovich-Dunn, Cassandra
    Kaufman, Jessica
    King, Catherine
    Skinner, S. Rachel
    Wand, Handan
    Guy, Rebecca
    Leask, Julie
    VACCINE, 2021, 39 (28) : 3655 - 3665
  • [2] Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wu, Chih-Jung
    Yeh, Tzu-Pei
    Chu, Ginger
    Ho, Ya-Fang
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2024, 33 (07) : 2732 - 2754
  • [3] Decision aids for prenatal testing: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yu, Lin
    Yang, Shu
    Zhang, Chunmiao
    Guo, Pingping
    Zhang, Xuehui
    Xu, Mengmeng
    Tian, Qi
    Cui, Xuan
    Zhang, Wei
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2021, 77 (10) : 3964 - 3979
  • [4] The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis
    Whybrow, Rebecca
    Webster, Louise M.
    Seed, Paul T.
    Sandall, Jane
    Chappell, Lucy C.
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [5] The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rebecca Whybrow
    Louise M. Webster
    Paul T. Seed
    Jane Sandall
    Lucy C. Chappell
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 22
  • [6] Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Villain, Patricia
    Downham, Laura
    Le Bonniec, Alice
    Bauquier, Charlotte
    Mandrik, Olena
    Nadarzynski, Tom
    Donelle, Lorie
    Murillo, Raul
    Tolma, Eleni L.
    Johnson, Sonali
    Soler-Michel, Patricia
    Smith, Robert
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2025, 27
  • [7] Decision-making in suicidal behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sastre-Buades, Aina
    Alacreu-Crespo, Adrian
    Courtet, Philippe
    Baca-Garcia, Enrique
    Barrigon, Maria Luisa
    NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS, 2021, 131 : 642 - 662
  • [8] Digital Shared Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Vitger, Tobias
    Korsbek, Lisa
    Austin, Stephen F.
    Petersen, Lone
    Nordentoft, Merete
    Hjorthoj, Carsten
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY, 2021, 12
  • [9] DECISION AIDS FOR PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Riikonen, Jarno
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Kilpelainen, Tuomas P.
    Craigie, Samantha
    Agarwal, Arnav
    Agoritsas, Thomas
    Couban, Rachel
    Dahm, Philipp
    Jarvinen, Petrus
    Montori, Victor
    Power, Nicholas
    Richard, Patrick O.
    Rutanen, Jarno
    Santti, Henrikki
    Tailly, Thomas
    Violette, Philippe D.
    Zhou, Qi
    Tikkinen, Kari A. O.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E764 - E765
  • [10] Effectiveness of decision aids on cancer-screening decision-making: an umbrella review protocol
    Hibino, Masaya
    Hamashima, Chisato
    Iwata, Mitsunaga
    Terasawa, Teruhiko
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (12):