AI Article Synopsis

  • Venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy is a serious health risk, and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly used to prevent it, but there are challenges in patient care that necessitate shared decision-making (SDM).
  • The study involved 22 healthcare professionals who were split into three groups, with each group receiving varying amounts of information and support related to the SDM process to assess its effectiveness on decision-making quality.
  • Results indicated that more comprehensive SDM interventions led to better decision-making experiences, though statistical differences were not significant, highlighting ongoing challenges in applying these strategies effectively in clinical settings.

Article Abstract

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants' perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS.

Methods: Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design.

Participants: The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program.

Intervention: We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention.

Analysis: For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses.

Results: Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event.

Conclusions: The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10629184PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02349-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

decisional conflict
20
three groups
12
group received
12
decision analysis
12
venous thromboembolism
8
shared decision-making
8
intervention dash-top
8
conflict scale
8
sdm interventions
8
analysis recommendation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!