{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04590818363273453, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05039920159680639, 'mean_word_length': 5.112804878048781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Patient Decision Aids to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in obstetrics and gynecology.


DATA SOURCES
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialized register, CINAHL, and EMBASE from 1946 to July 2019.


METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We selected randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids with usual clinical practice or a control intervention.


TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Thirty-five randomized controlled trials, which reported data from 9,790 women, were included. Patient decision aids were evaluated within a wide range of clinical scenarios relevant to obstetrics and gynecology, including contraception, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, and pelvic organ prolapse. Study characteristics and quality were recorded for each study. The meta-analysis was based on random-effects methods for pooled data. A standardized mean difference of 0.2 is considered small, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. When compared with usual clinical practice, the use of patient decision aids reduced decisional conflict (standardized mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.36, to -0.11; 19 trials; 4,624 women) and improved patient knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.58; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 17 trials; 4,375 women). There was no difference in patient anxiety (standardized mean difference -0.04; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06; 12 trials; 2,714 women) or satisfaction (standardized mean difference 0.17; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24; 6 trials; 2,718 women).


CONCLUSION
Patient decision aids are effective in facilitating shared decision making and can be helpful in clinical practice to support patient centered care informed by the best evidence.


SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Register of Systematic Reviews, www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/89953, CRD42018089953.