Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28237522›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2017

Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.

Christine Dehlendorf, Judith Fitzpatrick, Jody Steinauer, Lawrence Swiader, Kevin Grumbach, Cara Hall, Miriam Kuppermann

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Christine DehlendorfDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: christine.dehlendorf@ucsf.edu.
Judith FitzpatrickDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: judith.fitzpatrick@ucsf.edu.
Jody SteinauerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: jody.steinauer@ucsf.edu.
Lawrence SwiaderThe National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 1776 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA. Electronic address: lswiader@thenc.org.
Kevin GrumbachDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: kevin.grumbach@ucsf.edu.
Cara HallUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry (URSMD), 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. Electronic address: cara_Hall@urmc.rochester.edu.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco,1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, 1001 Potrero Avenue, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: miriam.kuppermann@ucsf.edu.

Funding

Development of a Decision Support Tool for ContraceptionK23HD067197 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DEHLENDORF, CHRISTINE E · 2011 to 2013
$380k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD067197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe developed and formatively evaluated a tablet-based decision support tool for use by women prior to a contraceptive counseling visit to help them engage in shared decision making regarding method selection.

methodsDrawing upon formative work around women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and conceptual understanding of health care decision making, we iteratively developed a storyboard and then digital prototypes, based on best practices for decision support tool development. Pilot testing using both quantitative and qualitative data and cognitive testing was conducted. We obtained feedback from patient and provider advisory groups throughout the development process.

resultsNinety-six percent of women who used the tool in pilot testing reported that it helped them choose a method, and qualitative interviews indicated acceptability of the tool's content and presentation. Compared to the control group, women who used the tool demonstrated trends toward increased likelihood of complete satisfaction with their method. Participant responses to cognitive testing were used in tool refinement.

conclusionOur decision support tool appears acceptable to women in the family planning setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Formative evaluation of the tool supports its utility among patients making contraceptive decisions, which can be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorCounselingDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesAdolescentAdultCognitionContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsContraceptive DevicesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceContraceptive AgentsContraceptionContraceptive counselingDecision makingDecision support toolShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID28237522
PMCPMC5985808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.