MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3173986231 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.25.21257891

Right For Me: a pragmatic multi-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of two interventions for increasing shared decision-making about contraceptive methods

2021· preprint· en· W3173986231 sur OpenAlexaff
Rachel Thompson, Gabrielle Stevens, Ruth Manski, Kyla Z. Donnelly, Daniela Agusti, Zhongze Li, Michelle Banach, Pearl Brady, Christina Colón Bradt, Tina Foster, Deborah Johnson, Sarah Munro, Judy Norsigian, Melissa Nothnagle, Ardis L. Olson, Heather L. Shepherd, Lisa Stern, Tor D. Tosteson, Lyndal Trevena, Krishna K. Upadhya, Glyn Elwyn

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological interventionMedicineHealth careFamily medicineCluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialDecision aidsCohortNursingAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives There is a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate shared decision-making under real-world conditions and, in particular, whether interventions should target patients, health care providers, or both groups. Our objectives were to assess the comparative effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of patient- and provider-targeted interventions for improving shared decision-making about contraceptive methods in a pragmatic trial that prioritised applicability to real-world care. Design The study design was a 2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial with four arms: (1) video + prompt card (‘video’), (2) decision aids + training (‘decision aids’), (3) dual interventions (‘dual’), and (4) usual care. Clusters were 16 primary and/or reproductive health care clinics that deliver contraceptive care in the Northeast United States. Participants Participants were people who had completed a health care visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, were aged 15-49 years, were able to read and write English or Spanish, and had not previously participated in the study. Participants were enrolled for 13 weeks before interventions were implemented in clinics (pre-implementation cohort) and for 26 weeks after interventions were implemented in clinics (post-implementation cohort). 5,018 participants provided data on at least one study outcome. Interventions Interventions were a video and prompt card that encourage patients to ask three specific questions in the health care visit and a suite of decision aids on contraceptive methods and training for providers in how to use them to facilitate shared decision-making with patients in the health care visit. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes spanned psychological, behavioural, and health outcomes. All outcomes were patient-reported via surveys administered immediately, four weeks, and six months after the health care visit. Results We did not observe any between-arm difference in the differences in shared decision-making between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts for the sample as a whole (video vs. usual care: adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82 to 1.85), p=0.80; decision aids vs. usual care: AOR=1.47 (95% CI: 0.98 to 2.18), p=0.32; dual vs. video: AOR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.64 to 1.41), p=1.00; dual vs. decision aids: AOR=0.80 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.17), p=0.72) or for participants with adequate health literacy. Among participants with limited health literacy, the difference in shared decision-making between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts was different in the video arm from the usual care arm (AOR=2.40 (95% CI: 1.01 to 5.71), p=.047) and was also different in the decision aids arm from the usual care arm (AOR=2.65 (95% CI: 1.16 to 6.07), p=.021), however these differences were not robust to adjustment for multiple comparisons. There were no intervention effects on the secondary outcomes among all participants nor among prespecified subgroups. With respect to intervention feasibility, rates of participant-reported exposure to the relevant intervention components were 9.4% for the video arm, 31.5% for the decision aids arm, and 5.0% for the dual arm. All interventions were acceptable to most patients. Conclusions The interventions studied are unlikely to have a meaningful population-wide impact on shared decision-making or other outcomes in real-world contraceptive care without additional strategies to promote and support implementation. Selective use of the interventions among patients with limited health literacy may be more promising and, if effective, could reduce disparities in shared decision-making. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02759939 .

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,057

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,214
Tête enseignante GPT0,536
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→Travaux en français237 207→