Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695369›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Psychosocial Factors of Health Professionals' Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study.

Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Johanie Lépine, Jordie Croteau, Hubert Robitaille, Anik Mc Giguere, Brenda J Wilson, François Rousseau, Isabelle Lévesque, France Légaré

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04162288 (RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

NCT04162288 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHU de Quebec-Universite LavalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsShared Decision MakingArmsOnline Training - Shared Decision Making in Prenatal Screening, Online Training - Online Training on Prenatal Screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Samira Abbasgholizadeh RahimiDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3781-1360
Johanie LépineClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8358-1362
Jordie CroteauCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2554-0444
Hubert RobitailleCanada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5817-5602
Anik Mc GiguereDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9928-7395
Brenda J WilsonSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2145-5154
François RousseauDepartment of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4504-5507
Isabelle LévesqueCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3436-2803
France LégaréDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2296-6696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome are difficult for women, as they entail risk, potential loss, and regret. Shared decision making increases women's knowledge of their choices and better aligns decisions with their values. Patient decision aids foster shared decision making but are rarely used in this context.

objectiveOne of the most promising strategies for implementing shared decision making is distribution of decision aids by health professionals. We aimed to identify factors influencing their intention to use a DA during prenatal visit for decisions about Down syndrome screening.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study. Using a Web panel, we conducted a theory-based survey of health professionals in Quebec province (Canada). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) family physicians, midwives, obstetrician-gynecologists, or trainees in these professions; (2) involved in prenatal care; and (3) working in Quebec province. Participants watched a video depicting a health professional using a decision aid during a prenatal consultation with a woman and her partner, and then answered a questionnaire based on an extended version of the theory of planned behavior, including some of the constructs of the theoretical domains framework. The questionnaire assessed 8 psychosocial constructs (attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, self-identity, moral norm, descriptive norm, self-efficacy, and perceived control), 7 related sets of behavioral beliefs (advantages, disadvantages, emotions, sources of encouragement or discouragement, incentives, facilitators, and barriers), and sociodemographic data. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and multiple linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing health professionals' intention to use a decision aid.

resultsAmong 330 health professionals who completed the survey, 310 met the inclusion criteria: family physicians, 55.2% (171/310); obstetrician-gynecologists, 33.8% (105/310); and midwives, 11.0% (34/310). Of these, 80.9% were female (251/310). Mean age was 39.6 (SD 11.5) years. Less than half were aware of any decision aids at all. In decreasing order of importance, factors influencing their intention to use a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening were as follows: self-identity (beta=.325, P<.001), attitude (beta=.297, P<.001), moral norm (beta=.288, P<.001), descriptive norm (beta=.166, P<.001), and anticipated regret (beta=.099, P=.003). Underlying behavioral beliefs significantly related to intention were that the use of a decision aid would promote decision making (beta=.117, 95% CI 0.043-0.190), would reassure health professionals (beta=.100, 95% CI 0.024-0.175), and might require more time than planned for the consultation (beta=-.077, 95% CI -0.124 to -0.031).

conclusionsWe identified psychosocial factors that could influence health professionals' intention to use a decision aid about Down syndrome screening. Strategies should remind them of the following: (1) using a decision aid for this purpose should be a common practice, (2) it would be expected of someone in their societal role, (3) the experience of using it will be satisfying and reassuring, and (4) it is likely to be compatible with their moral values.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingDown SyndromeEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansIntentionPhysicians, FamilyPrenatal DiagnosisSurveys and Questionnairesbehaviordecision makingdecision support techniquesDown syndromeintentionmidwiferyphysiciansprenatal diagnosissurveys

Identifiers

PMID29695369
PMCPMC5943629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.