Impact of computer-based pregnancy-induced hypertension and diabetes decision AIDS on empowering pregnant women

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Women's attitudes, beliefs and values about tests, and management for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Advances in research suggest the possibility of improving routine clinical care for preeclampsia using screening (predictive) and diagnostic tests. The views of women should be incorporated into the way in which such tests are used. Therefore, we explored the views of women with experience of preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDPs) about predictive and diagnostic tests, treatment risks, and expectant management.

METHOD

Eight hundred and seven women with experience of preeclampsia or other HDPs completed an online questionnaire. These women were participants in the Preeclampsia Registry (USA). The questionnaire contained 22 items to elicit women's views about predictive tests (n = 8); diagnostic tests (n = 5); treatment risks (n = 7), and expectant management (n = 2). An optional text box allowed participants to add qualitative open-ended comments. Levels of agreement with the statements were reported descriptively for the sample as a whole, and a preliminary investigation of the role of lived experience in shaping women's views was conducted by comparing subgroups within the sample based on time of HDP delivery (preterm/term). The qualitative data provided in the optional text box was analysed using inductive thematic analysis to examine participants' responses.

RESULTS

Women generally favored predictive and diagnostic testing, although not because they would opt for termination of pregnancy. Participants generally disagreed that taking daily low-dose aspirin (LDA) would make them nervous, with disagreement significantly higher in the preterm delivery subgroup. A high proportion of participants, especially in the preterm delivery subgroup, would take LDA throughout pregnancy. The majority of participants would be more worried about the possibility of preeclampsia than about the risks of treatments to their health (60%), and that proportion was significantly higher in the preterm delivery subgroup. There were no differences between subgroups in the views expressed about expectant management, although opinion was divided in both groups. Overall, most participants opted to put the baby's interests first.

CONCLUSION

Women with experience of hypertensive disorders were enthusiastic about improved predictive and diagnostic tests. However, varied views about treatment options and expectant management suggest the need for a shared decision-making tool to enable healthcare professionals to support pregnant women's decision-making to maximize the utility of these tests and interventions.

Setting and techniques for monitoring blood pressure during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Regular blood pressure (BP) measurement is crucial for the diagnosis and management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia. BP can be measured in various settings, such as conventional clinics or self-measurement at home, and with different techniques, such as using auscultatory or automated BP devices. It is important to understand the impact of different settings and techniques of BP measurement on important outcomes for pregnant women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of setting and technique of BP measurement for diagnosing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy on subsequent maternal and perinatal outcomes, women's quality of life, or use of health service resources.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 22 April 2020, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pregnant women, using validated BP devices in different settings or using different techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 21 identified studies, we included three, and excluded 11; seven were ongoing. Of the three included RCTs (536,607 women), one was a cluster-RCT, with a substantially higher number of participants (536,233 deliveries) than the other two trials, but did not provide data for most of our outcomes. We generally judged the included studies at low risk of bias, however, the certainty of the evidence was low, due to indirectness and imprecision. Meta-analysis was not possible because each study investigated a different comparison. None of the included studies reported our primary outcome of systolic BP greater than or equal to 150 mmHg. None of the studies reported any of these important secondary outcomes: antenatal hospital admissions, neonatal unit length of stay, or neonatal endotracheal intubation and use of mechanical ventilation. Setting of BP measurement: self-measurement versus conventional clinic measurement (one study, 154 women) There were no maternal deaths in either the self-monitoring group or the usual care group. The study did not report perinatal mortality. Self-monitoring may lead to slightly more diagnoses of pre-eclampsia compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 2.54; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but the wide 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Self-monitoring may have little to no effect on the likelihood of induction of labour compared with usual care (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if self-monitoring BP has any effect on maternal admission to intensive care (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 37.25; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), stillbirth (RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 52.63; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), neonatal death (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 37.25; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.55; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), compared with usual care because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harms and appreciable benefits. Self-monitoring may lead to slightly more neonatal unit admissions compared with usual care (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.62; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but the wide 95% CI includes the possibility of slightly fewer admissions with self-monitoring. Technique of BP measurement: Korotkoff phase IV (K4, muffling sound) versus Korotkoff phase V (K5, disappearance of sound) to represent diastolic BP (one study, 220 women) There were no maternal deaths in either the K4 or K5 group. There may be little to no difference in the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia between using K4 or K5 for diastolic BP (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 1 study; 220 women; low-certainty evidence), since the wide 95% CI includes the possibility of more diagnoses with K4. We are uncertain if there is a difference in perinatal mortality between the groups because the quality of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harm and appreciable benefit (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.92; 1 study, 220 women; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report data on maternal admission to intensive care, induction of labour, stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, or neonatal unit admissions. Technique of BP measurement: CRADLE intervention (CRADLE device, a semi-automated BP monitor with additional features, and an education package) versus usual care (one study, 536,233 deliveries) There may be little to no difference between the use of the CRADLE device and usual care in the number of maternal deaths (adjusted RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11; 536,233 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harm and appreciable benefit. The trial did not report pre-eclampsia, induction of labour, perinatal mortality, preterm birth, or neonatal unit admissions. Maternal admission to intensive care and perinatal outcomes (stillbirths and neonatal deaths) were only collected for a small proportion of the women, identified by an outcome not by baseline characteristics, thereby breaking the random allocation. Therefore, any differences between the groups could not be attributed to the intervention, and we did not extract data for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The benefit, if any, of self-monitoring BP in hypertensive pregnancies remains uncertain, as the evidence is limited to one feasibility study. Current practice of using K5 to measure diastolic BP is supported for women with pregnancy hypertension. The benefit, if any, of using the CRADLE device to measure BP in pregnancy remains uncertain, due to the limitations and instability of the trial study design.