- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Decisional conflict"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: a randomized controlled trial(Elsevier, 2020) Madden, Tessa; Holttum, Jessica; Maddipati, Ragini; Secura, Gina M.; Nease, Robert F.; Peipert, Jeffrey F.; Politi, Mary C.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a contraceptive decision aid in reducing decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception. Study design: We conducted a randomized trial of a computer-based decision aid compared to a control group for women presenting for reversible contraception at two clinics affiliated with an academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in decisional conflict, measured before and after the healthcare visit using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. We hypothesized the decision aid would reduce the decisional conflict score by 10 points on a 100-point scale (0 = no conflict, 100 = high conflict) compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare visit. Results: We enrolled and randomized 253 women, and 241 had complete data for our primary outcome. Overall, pre-visit decisional conflict scores were low, reflecting low levels of decisional conflict in our sample; median score 15 (range 0-80) in the decision aid and 10 (0-85) in the control group (p = 0.45). Both groups had a similar reduction in median decisional conflict after the healthcare visit: -10 (-80 to 25) and -10 (-60 to 5) in the decision aid and control groups respectively (p = 0.99). Choice of contraception (p = 0.23) and satisfaction with healthcare provider (p = 0.79) also did not differ by study group. Conclusions: Decisional conflict around contraception was low in both groups at baseline. Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict, alter method choice, or impact satisfaction compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Implications: Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict or alter method choice compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Future studies could focus on testing the decision aid in different clinical settings, especially where barriers to providing comprehensive contraceptive counseling exist.Item Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial(Elsevier, 2021) Weiss, Elliott Mark; Guttmann, Katherine F.; Olszewski, Aleksandra E.; Magnus, Brooke E.; Li, Sijia; Kim, Scott Y. H.; Shah, Anita R.; Juul, Sandra E.; Wu, Yvonne W.; Ahmad, Kaashif A.; Bendel-Stenzel, Ellen; Isaza, Natalia A.; Lampland, Andrea L.; Mathur, Amit M.; Rao, Rakesh; Riley, David; Russell, David G.; Salih, Zeynep N. I.; Torr, Carrie B.; Weitkamp, Joern-Hendrik; Anani, Uchenna E.; Chang, Taeun; Dudley, Juanita; Flibotte, John; Havrilla, Erin M.; O'Kane, Alexandra C.; Perez, Krystle; Stanley, Brenda J.; Shah, Seema K.; Wilfond, Benjamin S.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineObjective: To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial. Study design: This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision. Results: In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status. Conclusions: Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.