Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women's informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458]

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities compared with a pamphlet in supporting women's decision making.
Design A cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting Primary health care.
Population Women in early pregnancy consulting a GP.
Methods GPs were randomised to provide women with either a decision aid or a pamphlet. The decision aid was a 24-page booklet designed using the Ottowa Decision Framework. The pamphlet was an existing resource available in the trial setting.
Main outcome measures Validated scales were used to measure the primary outcomes, informed choice and decisional conflict, and the secondary outcomes, anxiety, depression, attitudes to the pregnancy/fetus and acceptability of the resource. Outcomes were measured at 14 weeks of gestation from questionnaires that women completed and returned by post.
Findings Women in the intervention group were more likely to make an informed decision 76% (126/165) than those in the control group 65% (107/165) (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.14–3.81). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group 88% (147/167) had a 'good' level of knowledge than those in the control group 72% (123/171) (adjusted OR 3.43; 95% CI 1.79–6.58). Mean (SD) decisional conflict scores were low in both groups, decision aid 1.71 (0.49), pamphlet 1.65 (0.55) (adjusted mean difference 0.10; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.22). There was no strong evidence of differences between the trial arms in the measures of psychological or acceptability outcomes.
Conclusion A tailored prenatal testing decision aid plays an important role in improving women's knowledge of first and second trimester screening tests and assisting them to make decisions about screening and diagnostic tests that are consistent with their values.

Evaluation of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities : a cluster randomised trial [ISRCTN22532458]

Background: By providing information on the relative merits and potential harms of the options available and a framework to clarify preferences, decision aids can improve knowledge and realistic expectations and decrease decisional conflict in individuals facing decisions between alternative forms of action. Decision-making about prenatal testing for fetal abnormalities is often confusing and difficult for women and the effectiveness of decision aids in this field has not been established. This study aims to test whether a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities, when compared to a pamphlet, improves women's informed decision-making and decreases decisional conflict.

Methods/design: A cluster designed randomised controlled trial is being conducted in Victoria, Australia. Fifty General Practitioners (GPs) have been randomised to one of two arms: providing women with either a decision aid or a pamphlet. The two primary outcomes will be measured by comparing the difference in percentages of women identified as making an informed choice and the difference in mean decisional conflict scores between the two groups. Data will be collected from women using questionnaires at 14 weeks and 24 weeks gestation.

The sample size of 159 women in both arms of the trial has been calculated to detect a difference of 18% (50 to 68%) in informed choice between the two groups. The required numbers have been adjusted to accommodate the cluster design, miscarriage and participant lost – to – follow up.

Baseline characteristics of women will be summarised for both arms of the trial. Similarly, characteristics of GPs will be compared between arms.

Differences in the primary outcomes will be analysed using 'intention-to-treat' principles. Appropriate regression techniques will adjust for the effects of clustering and include covariates to adjust for the stratifying variable and major potential confounding factors.

Discussion: The findings from this trial will make a significant contribution to improving women's experience of prenatal testing and will have application to a variety of maternity care settings. The evaluation of a tailored decision aid will also have implications for pregnancy care providers by identifying whether or not such a resource will support their role in providing prenatal testing information.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a web-based healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid for women experiencing domestic violence (I-DECIDE)

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence is a serious problem affecting the health and wellbeing of women globally. Interventions in health care settings have primarily focused on screening and referral, however, women often may not disclose abuse to health practitioners. The internet offers a confidential space in which women can assess the health of their relationships and make a plan for safety and wellbeing for themselves and their children. This randomised controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of a web-based healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid (I-DECIDE). Based broadly on the IRIS trial in the United States, it has been adapted for the Australian context where it is conducted entirely online and uses the Psychosocial Readiness Model as the basis for the intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: In this two arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, women who have experienced abuse or fear of a partner in the previous 6 months will be computer randomised to receive either the I-DECIDE website or a comparator website (basic relationship and safety advice). The intervention includes self-directed reflection exercises on their relationship, danger level, priority setting, and results in an individualised, tailored action plan. Primary self-reported outcomes are: self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale) immediately after completion, 6 and 12 months post-baseline; and depressive symptoms (Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Revised, 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Secondary outcomes include mean number of helpful actions for safety and wellbeing, mean level of fear of partner and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This fully-automated trial will evaluate a web-based self-information, self-reflection and self-management tool for domestic violence. We hypothesise that the improvement in self-efficacy and mental health will be mediated by increased perceived support and awareness encouraging positive change. If shown to be effective, I-DECIDE could be easily incorporated into the community sector and health care settings, providing an alternative to formal services for women not ready or able to acknowledge abuse and access specialised services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered on 15(th) December 2014 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001306606.

The role of focus groups in a randomised controlled trial : the ADEPT study

In a recent study we developed a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities. The effectiveness of the decision aid compared with a pamphlet in increasing women's informed choice and decreasing conflict was evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial, A DEcision aid for Prenatal Testing for fetal abnormalities (ADEPT) [ISRCTN22532458]. Challenged with the need to ensure that the decision aid best suited the needs of women and health professionals involved General Practitioners (GPs), we explored the potential of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to inform the development phase. In this article we discuss our rationale for, and provide some insights regarding our experience of, using qualitative methods during the development phase of the decision aid.

Transitioning to routine breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: what can we learn from cardiovascular disease?

To capitalise on advances in breast cancer prevention, all women would need to have their breast cancer risk formally assessed. With ~85% of Australians attending primary care clinics at least once a year, primary care is an opportune location for formal breast cancer risk assessment and management. This study assessed the current practice and needs of primary care clinicians regarding assessment and management of breast cancer risk. Two facilitated focus group discussions were held with 17 primary care clinicians (12 GPs and 5 practice nurses (PNs)) as part of a larger needs assessment. Primary care clinicians viewed assessment and management of cardiovascular risk as an intrinsic, expected part of their role, often triggered by practice software prompts and facilitated by use of an online tool. Conversely, assessment of breast cancer risk was not routine and was generally patient- (not clinician-) initiated, and risk management (apart from routine screening) was considered outside the primary care domain. Clinicians suggested that routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk might be achieved if it were widely endorsed as within the remit of primary care and supported by an online risk-assessment and decision aid tool that was integrated into primary care software. This study identified several key issues that would need to be addressed to facilitate the transition to routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk in primary care, based largely on the model used for cardiovascular disease.

Caprice versus standardization in venture capital decision making

This study examined the criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate business plans in order to make investment decisions. A literature survey revealed two competing theories: 'espoused criteria' where evaluation decisions are based on what venture capitalists say are the decisive factors, versus the use of 'known attributes' that successful ventures actually possess. Brunswik's Lens Model from Social Judgment Theory guided an empirical investigation of several different evaluation methods based on information contained in 129 business plans submitted for venture capital over a three-year period. Data evaluation culminated in the comparison of the percentage of correct decisions ('hit rate') for each method. We found that decisions based on the known attributes of successful ventures have significantly better hit rates than decisions made using espoused criteria. Discussion centered on the goal of achieving consistency in the conduct of venture analysis. Process standardization can aid in the achievement of consistency. Future research will both deepen and broaden insights.

Toward the standardization of venture capital investment evaluation : decision criteria for rating investee business plans

This study examined the criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate business plans in order to make investment decisions. A literature survey revealed two competing theories: “espoused criteria” where evaluation decisions are based on what venture capitalists say are the decisive factors; versus the use of “known attributes” that successful ventures actually possess. Brunswik’s Lens Model from Social Judgment Theory guided an empirical investigation of several different evaluation methods based on information contained in 129 business plans submitted for venture capital over a 3 year period. Data evaluation culminated in the comparison of the percentage of correct decisions (“hit-rate”) for each method. We found that decisions based on the known attributes of successful ventures have significantly better hit-rates than decisions made using espoused criteria. Discussion centred on the goal of achieving consistency in the conduct of venture analysis. Process standardization can aid in the achievement of consistency. Future research will both deepen and broaden insights.

Morals, rights and practice in the human services : effective and fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice

Provides a synthesis of human rights theory and human services practice and offers a rights based model to aid professional decision making and practice.