ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Patient Decision Aids for Pelvic Floor Surgery and Impact on Decisional Conflict.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-Making in Refractory Overactive Bladder: Evaluation of a Novel Patient Decision Aid and its Impact on Decisional Conflict.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Patient Decision Aids for Stress and Urgency Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether the use of a patient decision aid (PDA) diminishes decision conflict in patients considering surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to assess patient satisfaction concerning the PDA's user-friendliness and overall utility.
designOne hundred women attending routine urogynaecology clinic appointments were offered the PDA as part of standard care and recruited into the study. After using the PDA, participants completed a decisional conflict scale (DCS) to assess their decision-making experience.
settingSingle-site NHS tertiary-level care hospital outpatient department. POPULATION AND SAMPLE: The study included women considering surgical management for uterine/vault prolapse or SUI. Exclusion criteria comprised individuals under 18 years of age, those unable to communicate in English and patients not eligible for all surgical options presented in the PDAs.
methodsPatients presenting to the urogynaecology clinic with symptomatic SUI or POP considering surgical treatment were invited to participate in the study. After using the PDA and at their next clinic visit, participants completed a DCS to assess their decision-making experience.
main outcome measureThe DCS assessed the level of uncertainty and difficulty participants experienced in deciding on surgical treatment after using the PDA. A DCS score of less than 25 was associated with certainty in implementing the decision.
resultsThis was a prospective cohort study of 100 participants. The DCS scores for the cohorts showed low decisional conflict, with median scores of 0.8 (IQR 4.7) for the vault PDA, 6.3 (IQR 25) for the uterine PDA and 7.8 (IQR 21.1) for the SUI PDA. A sub-score analysis revealed higher scores for 'uncertainty' and 'effective decision making' in 21 participants with total DCS scores above 25.
conclusionNICE PDAs are valuable tools for enhancing decision-making in gynaecological surgery. However, this study highlights the need for their ongoing refinement to better address the informational and emotional aspects of patient decision-making. Future research should focus on incorporating emotional support frameworks and psychological management tools to improve their clinical utility and effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.