Values and preferences towards the use of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin during pregnancy: a convergent mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the decision analysis in shared decision making for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy (DASH-TOP) study.
Low-molecular-weight heparin
Preferences
Pregnancy
Shared decision-making
Values
Venous thromboembolism
Journal
Thrombosis journal
ISSN: 1477-9560
Titre abrégé: Thromb J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170542
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Sep 2024
06 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
26
12
2023
accepted:
21
08
2024
medline:
7
9
2024
pubmed:
7
9
2024
entrez:
6
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy. Design: Convergent mixed-methods. Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk. A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy. Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance. We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives. Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy.
METHODS
METHODS
Design: Convergent mixed-methods.
PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk.
INTERVENTION
METHODS
A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy.
ANALYSIS
METHODS
Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39243049
doi: 10.1186/s12959-024-00648-x
pii: 10.1186/s12959-024-00648-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
81Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
James AH. Pregnancy-associated thrombosis. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2009;2009(1):277–85.
doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2009.1.277
Kearsley R, Stocks G. Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy-diagnosis, management, and treatment. BJA Educ. 2021;21(3):117–23.
Pabinger I, Grafenhofer H, Kaider A, Kyrle PA, Quehenberger P. Risk of pregnancy-associated recurrent venous thromboembolism in women with a history of venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3:949–54.
doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01307.x
pubmed: 15869590
Knight M, Bunch K, Tuffnell D, Shakespeare J, Kotnis R, Kenyon S, Kurinczuk JJ (Eds.) on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care - Lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2015-17. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2019.
Bailly J, Jacobson BF, Louw S. Safety and efficacy of adjusted-dose enoxaparin in pregnant patients with increased risk for venous thromboembolic disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):70–5.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12764
pubmed: 30671924
Bates SM, Rajasekhar A, Middeldorp S, McLintock C, Rodger MA, James AH, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy. Blood Adv Am Soc Hematol. 2018;2:3317–59.
doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024802
Eckman MH, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Ebrahim S, Tikkinen KAO, Lopes LC, et al. Women’s values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy: A comparison of direct-choice and decision analysis using patient specific utilities. Thromb Res. 2015Aug 1;136(2):341–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.05.020
pubmed: 26033397
pmcid: 4880369
León-García M, Humphries B, Maraboto A, Rabassa M, Boehmer KR, Perestelo-Perez L, et al. Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022Oct 5;22(747):1–18.
Bates SM, Alonso-Coello P, Tikkinen KAO, Ebrahim S, Lopes LC, McDonald SD, et al. Women’s values and preferences and health state valuations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy: A cross-sectional interview study. Thromb Res. 2016;140:22–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.12.015
pubmed: 27500301
Ostermann J, Brown DS, van Til JA, Bansback N, Légaré F, Marshall DA, Bewtra M. Support Tools for Preference-Sensitive Decisions in Healthcare: Where Are We? Where Do We Go? How Do We Get There? Patient. 2019;12(5):439–43.
Bates SM, Greer A, Middeldorp S, Veenstra DL, Prabulos AM, Vandvik PO. VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy - Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 SUPPL.):e691S-e736S.
doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2300
pubmed: 22315276
pmcid: 3278054
Selva A, Solà I, Zhang Y, Pardo-Hernandez H, Haynes RB, Martínez García L, et al. Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients’ views and preferences. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–9.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0698-5
Patel JP, Auyeung V, Patel RK, Marsh MS, Green B, Arya R, et al. Women’s views on and adherence to low-molecular-weight heparin therapy during pregnancy and the puerperium. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(12):2526–34.
doi: 10.1111/jth.12020
pubmed: 23039905
Guimicheva B, Patel JP, Roberts LN, Subramanian D, Arya R. Women’s views, adherence and experience with postnatal thromboprophylaxis. Thromb Res. 2019;173:85–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.11.020
pubmed: 30500674
Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Zhang Y, Brundisini F, Florez ID, Wiercioch W, Nieuwlaat R, et al. Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: A systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines. Blood Adv. 2020;4(5):953–68.
doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000462
pubmed: 32150612
pmcid: 7065473
Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, Carley M, Volk R, Douglas EE, Pacheco-Brousseau L, Finderup J, Gunderson J, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Bravo P, Steffensen K, Gogovor A, Graham ID, Kelly SE, Légaré F, Sondergaard H, Thomson R, Trenaman L, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;1(1):CD001431.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 . Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1:CD001431.
Kunneman M, Hargraves IG, Sivly AL, Branda ME, LaVecchia CM, Labrie NHM, Brand-McCarthy S, Montori V. Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(6):1539–44.
Skeith L, Rodger MA, Bates SM, Gonsalves C, Karovitch A, Taylor TS. Part of the Ritual: Exploring Patient and Physician Decision Making Regarding Anticoagulation Use in Obstetric Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Thromb Haemost. 2021;121(10):1353–60.
doi: 10.1055/a-1366-9261
pubmed: 33472256
Stacey D, Graham ID, O’Connor AM, Pomey MP. Barriers and facilitators influencing call center nurses’ decision support for callers facing values-sensitive decisions: A mixed methods study. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2005;2(4):184–95.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.00035.x
pubmed: 17040526
Lotto M, Strieder AP, Ayala Aguirre PE, Andrade Moreira Machado MA, Rios D, Cruvinel A, et al. Parental perspectives on early childhood caries: a qualitative study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(4):451–8.
doi: 10.1111/ipd.12622
pubmed: 32011057
Pearson A, Robertson-Malt S, Rittenmeyer L. Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Focus on research methods toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV-positive women. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(2):153–70.
doi: 10.1002/nur.10072
pubmed: 12652611
Burke K. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 1945.
Mroz G, Papoutsi C, Greenhalgh T. From disaster, miracles are wrought’: A narrative analysis of UK media depictions of remote GP consulting in the COVID-19 pandemic using Burke’s pentad. Med Humanit. 2021Sep 1;47(3):292–301.
doi: 10.1136/medhum-2020-012111
pubmed: 33782180
pmcid: 8008912
Valli C, Rabassa M, Johnston BC, Kuijpers R, Prokop-Dorner A, Zajac J, et al. Health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption a mixed-methods systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):742–55.
doi: 10.7326/M19-1326
pubmed: 31569219
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Third. SAGE, editor. Los Angeles: SAGE Piblications, Inc; 2017.
Montori VM, Ruissen MM, Hargraves IG, Brito JP, Kunneman M. Shared decision-making as a method of care. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28(4):213–7.
Kunneman M, Griffioen IPM, Labrie NHM, Kristiansen M, Montori VM, van Beusekom MM. Making care fit manifesto. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023Feb 1;28(1):5–6.
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111871
pubmed: 34815303
Humphries B, León-García M, Bates SM, Guyatt G, Eckman MH, D'Souza R, Shehata N, Jack SM, Alonso-Coello P, Xie F. Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed-methods pilot study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28(5):309–19.
Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methdos Approaches. Fifth. Vol. Fifth Edition. Thousand Oaks, California 91320: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018.
Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 1976;10:129–36.
doi: 10.1016/0038-0121(76)90036-7
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ. 1996;15(2):209–31.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005Nov;15(9):1277–88.
doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
pubmed: 16204405
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008Apr;62(1):107–15.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
pubmed: 18352969
Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, Veldwijk J, Pinto CA, Donkers B, Huys I, van Overbeeke E, Juhaeri J, de Bekker-Grob EW. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(7):1324–31.
Weiner SJ, Schwartz A. Contextual Errors in Medical Decision Making: Overlooked and Understudied. Acad Med. 2016;91(5):657–62.
Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley CP, Stevenson FA. Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making. Vol. 50, Social Science & Medicine. 2000. Available from: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed
Heen AF, Vandvik PO, Brandt L, Montori VM, Lytvyn L, Guyatt G, et al. A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021Jan;1(129):104–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.002
Jiang F, Hu X, Jiang K, Pi H, He Q, Chen X. The role of low molecular weight heparin on recurrent pregnancy loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 60, Taiwanese J Obstetrics Gynecol. Elsevier Ltd; 2021. p. 1–8.
Tinetti ME, Naik AD, Dindo L, Costello DM, Esterson J, Geda M, et al. Association of Patient Priorities-Aligned Decision-Making with Patient Outcomes and Ambulatory Health Care Burden among Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019Dec 1;179(12):1688–97.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4235
pubmed: 31589281
pmcid: 6784811
Nyhof BB, Jameel B, Dunn S, Grace SL, Khanlou N, Stewart DE, et al. Identifying strategies to implement patient-centred care for women: Qualitative interviews with women. Patient Educ Couns. 2020Jul 1;103(7):1422–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.008
pubmed: 32063437
Smith-Merry J, Goggin G, Campbell A, McKenzie K, Ridout B, Baylosis C. Social Connection and Online Engagement: Insights From Interviews With Users of a Mental Health Online Forum. JMIR Ment Health. 2019;6(3):e11084.
Montori VM, Brito JP, Murad MH. The optimal practice of evidence-based medicine: incorporating patient preferences in practice guidelines. JAMA. 2013;310(23):2503–4.
Greving JP, Buskens E, Koffijberg H, Algra A. Cost-effectiveness of aspirin treatment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease events in subgroups based on age, gender, and varying cardiovascular risk. Circulation. 2008Jun;117(22):2875–83.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.735340
pubmed: 18506010
Kominiarek MA, Angelopoulos SM, Shapiro NL, Studee L, Nutescu EA, Hibbard JU. Low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnancy: Peripartum bleeding complications. J Perinatol. 2007Jun;27(6):329–34.
doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211745
pubmed: 17443203
Locadia M, Bossuyt PMM, Stalmeier PFM, Sprangers MAG, van Dongen CJJ, Middeldorp S, et al. Treatment of venous thromboembolism with vitamin K antagonists: Patients’ health state valuations and treatment preferences. Thromb Haemost. 2004Dec;92(6):1336–41.
pubmed: 15583742
Martens TZ, Emed JD. The experiences and challenges of pregnant women coping with thrombophilia. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007;36(1):55–62.
doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2006.00113.x
pubmed: 17238947
Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.
doi: 10.1023/A:1025119931010
pubmed: 14516169
Ogwulu CB, Jackson LJ, Kinghorn P, Roberts TE. A systematic review of the techniques used to value temporary health states. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1180–97.
Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T, et al. Clarifying values: An updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(SUPPL. 2):S8. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/S2/S8
Jakubczyk M, Golicki D. Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states. Theory Decis. 2020Feb 1;88(1):51–71.
doi: 10.1007/s11238-019-09707-6
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008Apr;13(2):92–8.
doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
pubmed: 18416914
Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):554–61.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1865
pubmed: 26553895
pmcid: 4639381
Golembiewski EH, Leon-Garcia M, Gravholt DL, Brito JP, Spatz ES, Bendel MA, Montori VM, Maraboto AP, Hartasanchez SA, Hargraves IG. Comparing Methods for Identifying Post-Market Patient Preferences at the Point of Decision-Making: Insights from Patients with Chronic Pain Considering a Spinal Cord Stimulator Device. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024;18:1325–44.
Benz HL, Lee TJ, Tsai JH, Bridges JFP, Eggers S, Moncur M, Shaya FT, Shoulson I, Spatz ES, Wilson L, Saha A. Advancing the Use of Patient Preference Information as Scientific Evidence in Medical Product Evaluation: A Summary Report of the Patient Preference Workshop. Patient. 2019;12(6):553–7.
van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, Juhaeri J, Levitan B, Kübler J, de Bekker-Grob E, Huys I. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68.
León-García M, Wieringa TH, Espinoza Suárez NR, Hernández-Leal MJ, Villanueva G, Singh Ospina N, Hidalgo J, Prokop LJ, Rocha Calderón C, LeBlanc A, Zeballos-Palacios C, Brito JP, Montori VM. Does the duration of ambulatory consultations affect the quality of healthcare? A systematic review. BMJ Open Qual. 2023;12(4):e002311.
Kunneman M, Gionfriddo MR, Toloza FJK, Gärtner FR, Spencer-Bonilla G, Hargraves IG, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(3):452–66.