Suppr超能文献

评价一款计算机化的避孕决策辅助工具:一项随机对照试验。

Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Divisions of Family Planning & Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 4901 Forest Park Avenue, Mailstop: 8064-37-1005, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, 515 Mayo Memorial Building, Moos Tower 12th Floor, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

出版信息

Contraception. 2020 Nov;102(5):339-345. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.08.002. Epub 2020 Aug 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a contraceptive decision aid in reducing decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized trial of a computer-based decision aid compared to a control group for women presenting for reversible contraception at two clinics affiliated with an academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in decisional conflict, measured before and after the healthcare visit using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. We hypothesized the decision aid would reduce the decisional conflict score by 10 points on a 100-point scale (0 = no conflict, 100 = high conflict) compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare visit.

RESULTS

We enrolled and randomized 253 women, and 241 had complete data for our primary outcome. Overall, pre-visit decisional conflict scores were low, reflecting low levels of decisional conflict in our sample; median score 15 (range 0-80) in the decision aid and 10 (0-85) in the control group (p = 0.45). Both groups had a similar reduction in median decisional conflict after the healthcare visit: -10 (-80 to 25) and -10 (-60 to 5) in the decision aid and control groups respectively (p = 0.99). Choice of contraception (p = 0.23) and satisfaction with healthcare provider (p = 0.79) also did not differ by study group.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisional conflict around contraception was low in both groups at baseline. Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict, alter method choice, or impact satisfaction compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict or alter method choice compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Future studies could focus on testing the decision aid in different clinical settings, especially where barriers to providing comprehensive contraceptive counseling exist.

摘要

目的

评估避孕决策辅助工具在降低寻求可逆避孕女性决策冲突方面的有效性。

研究设计

我们对在学术医疗中心附属的两家诊所就诊的 253 名寻求可逆避孕的女性进行了一项基于计算机的决策辅助工具与对照组的随机试验。主要结局是使用经过验证的决策冲突量表在就诊前后测量的决策冲突变化。我们假设与对照组相比,决策辅助工具将使决策冲突评分降低 10 分(0=无冲突,100=高冲突)。次要结局包括选择的避孕方法和对就诊的满意度。

结果

我们共纳入并随机分配了 253 名女性,其中 241 名女性在我们的主要结局中具有完整数据。总体而言,就诊前的决策冲突得分较低,反映了我们样本中的决策冲突程度较低;决策辅助组中位数得分为 15(范围 0-80),对照组中位数得分为 10(0-85)(p=0.45)。两组在就诊后决策冲突的中位数均有类似程度的降低:决策辅助组减少了-10(-80 至 25),对照组减少了-10(-60 至 5)(p=0.99)。避孕方法的选择(p=0.23)和对医疗保健提供者的满意度(p=0.79)在研究组之间也没有差异。

结论

两组在基线时的避孕决策冲突都较低。与对照组相比,在选择可逆避孕的女性中,使用计算机化避孕决策辅助工具并没有降低决策冲突,改变方法选择,或影响满意度。

意义

与对照组相比,在选择可逆避孕的女性中,使用计算机化避孕决策辅助工具并没有降低决策冲突或改变方法选择。未来的研究可以集中在不同的临床环境中测试该决策辅助工具,特别是在提供全面避孕咨询存在障碍的情况下。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.
Contraception. 2020 Nov;102(5):339-345. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2020.08.002. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
4
A Decision Aid for Postpartum Adolescent Family Planning: A Quasi-Experimental Study in Tanzania.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 10;20(6):4904. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064904.
5
Evaluation of a decision aid for early pregnancy loss: A pilot randomized controlled trial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Contraception. 2023 Sep;125:110077. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.110077. Epub 2023 Jun 1.
6
8
Cluster randomized trial of a patient-centered contraceptive decision support tool, My Birth Control.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;220(6):565.e1-565.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.015. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
9
Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jul;100(7):1374-1381. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.009. Epub 2017 Feb 10.
10
Decisional conflict associated with clinicians discouraging particular contraceptive methods.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Dec;26(6):1612-1619. doi: 10.1111/jep.13364. Epub 2020 Feb 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Affective Disorders: An Updated Review.
Open Access J Contracept. 2025 Feb 11;16:1-29. doi: 10.2147/OAJC.S431365. eCollection 2025.
2
Patient-Centred Counselling Tools for Dispensing Contraceptives in Community Pharmacy Settings: A Systematic Review.
Open Access J Contracept. 2024 Nov 30;15:119-133. doi: 10.2147/OAJC.S487417. eCollection 2024.
3
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
4
6
Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Nov;227(5):705-713.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.050. Epub 2022 Jun 30.

本文引用的文献

1
Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review.
Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):315-326. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851346. Epub 2019 May 29.
2
Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review.
Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):301-314. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851345. Epub 2019 May 29.
3
The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners.
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. Epub 2019 May 9.
4
Cluster randomized trial of a patient-centered contraceptive decision support tool, My Birth Control.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;220(6):565.e1-565.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.015. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
5
Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014.
Contraception. 2018 Jan;97(1):14-21. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.10.003. Epub 2017 Oct 13.
6
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
7
Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017 Mar;49(1):7-16. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12017. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
8
The role of contraceptive attributes in women's contraceptive decision making.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):46.e1-46.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.051. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
9
The relationship between contraceptive features preferred by young women and interest in IUDs: an exploratory analysis.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Sep;46(3):157-63. doi: 10.1363/46e2014. Epub 2014 Jul 7.
10
What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making.
Contraception. 2014 Sep;90(3):280-7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.012. Epub 2014 Apr 30.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验