Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28358384›Full record

ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2017

Field testing of decision coaching with a decision aid for parents facing extreme prematurity.

G P Moore, B Lemyre, T Daboval, S Ding, S Dunn, S Akiki, N Barrowman, A L Shephard, M L Lawson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Development of a checklist for evaluation of shared decision-making in consultation for extremely preterm delivery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  3. The impact of standardization of care for neonates born at 22-23 weeks gestation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Development and field testing of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making for adults newly diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Evaluating shared decision-making in periviable counseling using objective structured clinical examinations.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Decision Aids: The Role of the Patient in Perioperative Safety.International anesthesiology clinics · 2019
    Article
  18. Observational
  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

9 authors.

G P MooreDivision of Neonatology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Newborn Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
B LemyreDivision of Neonatology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Newborn Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
T DabovalDivision of Neonatology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Newborn Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
S DingCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
S DunnCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
S AkikiCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
N BarrowmanCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
A L ShephardCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
M L LawsonCHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess and modify an existing decision aid and field-test decision coaching with the modified aid during consultations with parents facing potential delivery at 23 to 24 weeks gestation. STUDY

designInternational Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi) scoring deficits, multi-stakeholder group feedback and α-testing guided modifications. Feasibility/acceptability were assessed. The Decisional Conflict Scale was used to measure participants' decisional conflict before (T1) and immediately after (T2) the consultation.

resultsIPDASi assessment of the existing aid (score 11/35) indicated it required updated data, more information and a palliative care description. Following modification, IPDASi score increased to 26/35. Twenty subjects (12 pregnancies) participated in field-testing; 15 completed all questionnaires. Most participants (89%) would definitely recommend this form of consultation. Decisional conflict scores decreased (P<0.001) between T1 (52±25) and T2 (10±16).

conclusionField testing demonstrated that consultations using the aid with decision coaching were feasible, reduced decisional conflict and may facilitate shared decision-making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesParentsAdultCanadaFemaleHumansInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, NewbornMaleMentoringPregnancySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28358384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.