Browsing by Author "Jeffries, Erin"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Creation of a Decision Support Tool for Expectant Parents Facing Threatened Periviable Delivery: Application of a User-Centered Design Approach
    (Springer, 2019-06) Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker; Hoffman, Shelley M.; Lynch, Dustin; Jeffries, Erin; Jenkins, Kelli; Wiehe, Sarah; Bauer, Nerissa; Kuppermann, Miriam; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is optimal in the context of periviable delivery, where the decision to pursue life-support measures or palliation is both preference sensitive and value laden. We sought to develop a decision support tool (DST) prototype to facilitate SDM by utilizing a user-centered design research approach. Methods We convened four patient and provider advisory boards with women and their partners who had experienced a surviving or non-surviving periviable delivery, pregnant women who had not experienced a prior preterm birth, and obstetric providers. Each 2-h session involved design research activities to generate ideas and facilitate sharing of values, goals, and attitudes. Participant feedback shaped the design of three prototypes (a tablet application, family story videos, and a virtual reality experience) to be tested in a final session. Results Ninety-five individuals (48 mothers/partners; 47 providers) from two hospitals participated. Most participants agreed that the prototypes should include factual, unbiased outcomes and probabilities. Mothers and support partners also desired comprehensive explanations of delivery and care options, while providers wanted a tool to ease communication, help elicit values, and share patient experiences. Participants ultimately favored the tablet application and suggested that it include family testimonial videos. Conclusion Our results suggest that a DST that combines unbiased information and understandable outcomes with family testimonials would be meaningful for periviable SDM. User-centered design was found to be a useful method for creating a DST prototype that may lead to improved effectiveness, usability, uptake, and dissemination in the future, by leveraging the expertise of a wide range of stakeholders.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Examining the Impact of the Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Risk Calculator Estimation on Trial of Labor After Cesarean Counseling
    (Sage, 2019-05-27) Jeffries, Erin; Falcone-Wharton, Amy; Daggy, Joanne; Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Background. Because failed trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with greater morbidity than planned cesarean, it is important to distinguish women with a high likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) from those likely to fail. The VBAC Calculator may help make this distinction but little is known about how often providers use it; nor whether use improves risk estimation and/or influences TOLAC counseling. Methods. In a cross-sectional survey, a convenience sample of obstetrical providers reported their likelihood (4-point Likert-type scale) to “Recommend,”“Offer,” or “Agree to” TOLAC for patients presented first through five clinical vignettes; then, in different order, by corresponding VBAC calculator estimates. Results. Of the 85 (of 101, 84% response rate) participants, 88% routinely performed TOLAC, but only 21% used the Calculator. The majority (67.1% to 89.3%) overestimated the likelihood of success for all but one vignette (which had the highest estimate of success). Most providers (42% to 89%) recommended TOLAC for all five vignettes. Given calculated estimates, the majority of providers (67% to 95%) recommended TOLAC for success estimates exceeding 40%. For estimates between 20% and 40%, most providers offered (58%) or agreed (68%) to TOLAC; and even below 20%, over half still agreed to TOLAC. The vignette with the lowest estimate of success (18.7%) had the weakest intraprovider agreement (kappa = 0.116; confidence interval [CI] = 0.045–0.187), whereas the strongest agreement was found in the two vignettes with highest success estimates: 77.9% (kappa = 0.549; CI = 0.382–0.716) and 96.6% (kappa = 0.527; CI = 0.284–0.770). Limitations. Survey responses may not reflect actual practice patterns. Conclusion. Providers are overly optimistic in their clinical estimation of VBAC success. Wider use of decision support could aid in risk stratification and TOLAC counseling to reduce patient morbidity.