Decision aids and shared decision making in urogynecology

Abstract

Objectives: 

To examine the efficacy and acceptability of decision aids (DAs) in counseling urogynecology patients with prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or refractory overactive bladder.

Methods: 

This pilot study enrolled 33 patients into a control group that underwent usual care without a DA, followed by 33 patients into an intervention group where providers utilized a DA for counseling. Postvisit patient surveys assessed differences in treatment preference, knowledge, and in patient-physician collaboration using SURE, CollaboRATE, and Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scales. Postvisit provider surveys assessed their perception of the usefulness and the difficulty of using a DA and visit length. Independent t tests were used for continuous variables (Knowledge and SDM Process scores) and Chi-Square for categorical variables (treatment preference, SURE, and CollaboRATE).

Results: 

The majority of eligible patients 66/71 (93%) completed the survey. The intervention group trended toward higher knowledge scores (72% vs 60%, P = 0.06), clearer treatment preferences (85% vs 67%, P = 0.08), higher rates of top SURE scale scores (91% vs 73%, P = 0.11), and top CollaboRATE scores (75% vs 52%, P = 0.07). SDM process scores were similar across groups (3.2 vs 3.2, P = 0.96). Providers used the DA in 73% of intervention group visits and rated the visit length as “normal” in both groups (70% vs 76%, P = 0.78).

Conclusions: 

There were no statistically significant differences between the control group and the intervention group. The use of DAs was acceptable to providers and indicated a trend toward increased patient knowledge, treatment preference, and satisfaction. A larger study is warranted to examine the impact of DAs on decision making and patient experience.

 

Video Summary:https://links.lww.com/MENO/A856.