Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Sylvie St-Jacques ◽  
Susie Gagnon ◽  
Merlin Njoya ◽  
Michel Brisson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Shared Decision

What Motivates Family Physicians to Participate in Training Programs in Shared Decision Making?

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Allaire ◽  
Michel Labrecque ◽  
Anik Giguere ◽  
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ◽  
France Légaré
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Shared Decision

Web-based Training for Nurses on Shared Decision-Making and Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome: a Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Poulin Herron ◽  
Titilayo Tatiana Agbadje ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Gérard Ngueta ◽  
Geneviève Roch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Intention To Use ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Web Based

BACKGROUND Background: Nurses provide maternity care and thus play an important role in supporting pregnant women making decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. We developed a web-based shared decision making (SDM) training program for health professionals focusing on Down syndrome screening decisions. OBJECTIVE Objective: We assessed the impact of a SDM training program on nurses’ intention to use a decision aid with pregnant women deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. METHODS Methods: In this 2-arm parallel controlled trial, French-speaking nurses working with pregnant women in the province of Quebec were recruited online by a private survey firm. They were conveniently allocated either to the intervention group (web-based SDM training program that included prenatal screening) or to the control group (web-based training program focusing on prenatal screening alone, with no SDM content). The primary outcome was intention to use a decision aid. Secondary outcomes were psychosocial variables of intention (e.g. social influence), as well as knowledge, satisfaction, acceptability, perceived usefulness and reaction to the pedagogical approach. All outcomes were self-assessed through online questionnaires including space for written comments. No blinding was performed. We used Student's t test and Fisher's exact test to compare continuous and categorical variables between groups. RESULTS Results: Of 57 participants assessed for eligibility, 40 were allocated to the intervention (n=20) or control group (n=20) and 36 (n=18 in each) completed the training program. Mean age of participants was 41 years (SD 9). Most were women (97.5%), Caucasian (95%), clinical nurses (70%), and had completed a baccalaureate degree (65%). Post-intervention, the mean score of intention was 6.3 (5.9; 6.7) for the intervention group and 6.0 (5.42; 6.64) for the control group. The difference in intention score and other psychosocial variables score between groups was not statistically significant. Knowledge scores about SDM were significantly different (79% in the intervention group, 64% in the control group, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction [4.4 (SD 0.7) in the intervention group and 4.5 (SD 0.9)] in the control group and perceived usefulness [4.6 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.4 (SD 0.5)] in the control group. Acceptability of the training program showed a statistically significant difference [4.6 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.3 (SD 0.4) in the control group; p=0.02] as well as reaction to the pedagogical approach [4.7 (SD 0.4) in the intervention group and 4.4 (SD 0.4) in the control group; p=0.02]. Seventeen participants also gave written comments on the training. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions: Nurses’ intention to use SDM in prenatal care is already high, with training or without, but their knowledge about SDM could be improved with SDM training. Our results will inform future strategies to implement shared decision-making among nurses. CLINICALTRIAL Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04162288; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04162288?term=NCT04162288&draw=2&rank=1

scholarly journals Physician Attitudes and Self-reported Practices Toward Prostate Cancer Screening in Black and White Men

2022 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
Nicholas Shungu ◽  
Vanessa A. Diaz ◽  
Suzanne Perkins ◽  
Ambar Kulshreshtha
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Black Men ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Black Patients

Background and Objectives: Updated 2018 prostate cancer screening guidelines recommend informed decision-making discussions, which should include education on prostate cancer’s disproportionate impact on Black men. It is unknown whether academic family physicians follow these guidelines. Methods: Family physicians were surveyed as part of the 2020 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey. We used χ2 to compare physicians’ knowledge and screening practices stratified by physician age, gender, and percentage of Black patients in patient panel. We calculated logistic regressions predicting shared decision-making conversations, barriers to shared decision-making, inclusion of race in prostate cancer screening approach, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing adjusted for physician age, gender, and percentage of Black patients. Results: Physicians reported engaging in shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening in half of eligible men. Only 29.2% of physicians reported routinely informing Black men of their increased prostate cancer risk. In logistic regressions, physician gender (female) and fewer Black patients in panel (<25%) were associated with lower frequency of shared decision-making with Black patients. Physician age (<40 years) was associated with not discussing race during screening discussions (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.55–3.23). Conclusions: Most academic family physicians do not appropriately inform Black men of increased prostate cancer risk, with younger physicians less likely to discuss race than older physicians. Female physicians, and physicians who see fewer Black patients, are less likely to have shared decision-making conversations with Black patients. This suggests educational efforts for these groups are needed to address health disparities in prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Effect of Shared Decision-making on Anxiety of Women Recommended for Prenatal Screening Tests in Southeast of Iran

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Moudi ◽  
Raheleh Jam ◽  
Hossein Ansari ◽  
Mostafa Montazer Zohour
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Level Of Education ◽  
University Level

Objective: To study the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) on the anxiety of women who were recommended for prenatal screening tests. Materials and methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted on a total of 200 pregnant women who referred to the health centers of Zahedan, Iran, for prenatal care within April 7 to September 7, 2019. The control group received routine care, and the intervention group attended a session based on SDM. The demographic characteristics form and Spielberger Six-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were filled out before and immediately after the counseling, as well as before receiving the results of maternal serum biochemical markers. Results: No statistically significant effect of SDM on anxiety was reported between the control and intervention groups immediately after the counseling session (P=0.46). However, the obtained data showed that the mean value of anxiety scores (16.52±3.06) was higher among the women in the intervention group than that reported for the control group (13.80±3.55) on the day before receiving the results of the blood tests (P<0.001). Nevertheless, logistic regression analysis showed only women with a university level of education were likely to have higher anxiety scores than women with lower educational levels (AOR=10.60; 95% CI: 2.07-54.24; P=0.005). Conclusion: Offering prenatal screening can cause a slight increase in the level of anxiety among women with a university level of education. Therefore, it is required to implement supportive strategies to help high-risk pregnant women in coping with anxiety.  

scholarly journals Web-Based Training for Nurses on Using a Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making about Prenatal Screening: a Controlled Trial (Preprint)

JMIR Nursing ◽  
10.2196/31380 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Poulin Herron ◽  
Titilayo Tatiana Agbadje ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Gérard Ngueta ◽  
Geneviève Roch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Web Based

scholarly journals Psychosocial Factors of Health Professionals� Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi ◽  
Johanie Lépine ◽  
Jordie Croteau ◽  
Hubert Robitaille ◽  
Anik MC Giguere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Intention To Use ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Down Syndrome Screening

BACKGROUND Decisions 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. OBJECTIVE One 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. METHODS We 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. RESULTS Among 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). CONCLUSIONS We 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document