Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study.
Decision aids
Decisional conflict
Informed decision choices
Shared decision-making
Values and preferences and decision analysis
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 11 2023
06 11 2023
Historique:
received:
17
01
2023
accepted:
21
10
2023
medline:
8
11
2023
pubmed:
7
11
2023
entrez:
6
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design. The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37932759
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02349-3
pii: 10.1186/s12911-023-02349-3
pmc: PMC10629184
doi:
Substances chimiques
Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
250Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : GSD-152327
Pays : Canada
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
MDM Policy Pract. 2020 Mar 18;5(1):2381468320914307
pubmed: 32215320
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):247-52
pubmed: 22749071
Med Decis Making. 2014 Aug;34(6):699-710
pubmed: 23963501
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Jun;61(3):397-404
pubmed: 15970420
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jul;7(4):620-6
pubmed: 24867916
Blood Adv. 2018 Nov 27;2(22):3317-3359
pubmed: 30482767
Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):315-326
pubmed: 31142205
Epidemiol Health. 2014 Oct 30;36:e2014025
pubmed: 25358466
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 May;26(3):
pubmed: 28145105
Med Decis Making. 2019 Aug;39(6):673-680
pubmed: 31226911
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jan;29(1):219-22
pubmed: 24002635
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30
pubmed: 7898294
Thromb Haemost. 2021 Oct;121(10):1353-1360
pubmed: 33472256
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 4;15(1):72
pubmed: 32887669
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;141:106-120
pubmed: 34628018
Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 Aug;96(8):2205-2217
pubmed: 34226025
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 15;13(2):e0191747
pubmed: 29447193
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;132(1):e18-e34
pubmed: 29939939
Am J Med. 2011 Jun;124(6):549-56
pubmed: 21605732
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 28;16(9):e0257902
pubmed: 34582501
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jun 04;13:63
pubmed: 23734871
Thromb Res. 2016 Apr;140:22-9
pubmed: 27500301
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Jun;16(3):216-23
pubmed: 17545350
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 22;11(3):e046021
pubmed: 33753445
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;145(1):70-75
pubmed: 30671924
Soc Sci Med. 2006 May;62(9):2267-78
pubmed: 16290918
Patient. 2019 Oct;12(5):439-443
pubmed: 31256346
Qual Health Care. 2000 Dec;9(4):238-44
pubmed: 11101709
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Oct 5;22(1):747
pubmed: 36199014
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 May;102(5):817-841
pubmed: 30612829
Med Educ Online. 2022 Dec;27(1):2044279
pubmed: 35262472
Am Heart J. 2022 Jun;248:42-52
pubmed: 35218727
Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e691S-e736S
pubmed: 22315276
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Aug 26;15:71
pubmed: 26307007
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jan;36(1):55-61
pubmed: 32808213
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2018;60(6):397-402
pubmed: 29943797
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Oct;28(5):309-319
pubmed: 36858800
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):755-767
pubmed: 33660539
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011 Jan 1;4(1):14-21
pubmed: 21139092
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085
Thromb Res. 2015 Aug;136(2):341-7
pubmed: 26033397
J Comp Eff Res. 2013 Nov;2(6):595-603
pubmed: 24236798
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2016 Nov - Dec;45(6):801-812
pubmed: 27718368
J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Oct;16(5):715-716
pubmed: 32713792