RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Right For Me: a pragmatic multi-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of two interventions for increasing shared decision-making about contraceptive methods
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.25.21257891
DO 10.1101/2021.06.25.21257891
A1 Thompson, Rachel
A1 Stevens, Gabrielle
A1 Manski, Ruth
A1 Donnelly, Kyla Z
A1 Agusti, Daniela
A1 Li, Zhongze
A1 Banach, Michelle
A1 Boardman, Maureen B
A1 Brady, Pearl
A1 Bradt, Christina Colón
A1 Foster, Tina
A1 Johnson, Deborah J
A1 Munro, Sarah
A1 Norsigian, Judy
A1 Nothnagle, Melissa
A1 Olson, Ardis L
A1 Shepherd, Heather L
A1 Stern, Lisa F
A1 Tosteson, Tor D
A1 Trevena, Lyndal
A1 Upadhya, Krishna K
A1 Elwyn, Glyn
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/28/2021.06.25.21257891.abstract
AB Objectives There is a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate shared decision-making under real-world conditions and, in particular, whether interventions should target patients, health care providers, or both groups. Our objectives were to assess the comparative effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of patient- and provider-targeted interventions for improving shared decision-making about contraceptive methods in a pragmatic trial that prioritised applicability to real-world care.Design The study design was a 2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial with four arms: (1) video + prompt card (‘video’), (2) decision aids + training (‘decision aids’), (3) dual interventions (‘dual’), and (4) usual care. Clusters were 16 primary and/or reproductive health care clinics that deliver contraceptive care in the Northeast United States.Participants Participants were people who had completed a health care visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, were aged 15-49 years, were able to read and write English or Spanish, and had not previously participated in the study. Participants were enrolled for 13 weeks before interventions were implemented in clinics (pre-implementation cohort) and for 26 weeks after interventions were implemented in clinics (post-implementation cohort). 5,018 participants provided data on at least one study outcome.Interventions Interventions were a video and prompt card that encourage patients to ask three specific questions in the health care visit and a suite of decision aids on contraceptive methods and training for providers in how to use them to facilitate shared decision-making with patients in the health care visit.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes spanned psychological, behavioural, and health outcomes. All outcomes were patient-reported via surveys administered immediately, four weeks, and six months after the health care visit.Results We did not observe any between-arm difference in the differences in shared decision-making between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts for the sample as a whole (video vs. usual care: adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82 to 1.85), p=0.80; decision aids vs. usual care: AOR=1.47 (95% CI: 0.98 to 2.18), p=0.32; dual vs. video: AOR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.64 to 1.41), p=1.00; dual vs. decision aids: AOR=0.80 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.17), p=0.72) or for participants with adequate health literacy. Among participants with limited health literacy, the difference in shared decision-making between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts was different in the video arm from the usual care arm (AOR=2.40 (95% CI: 1.01 to 5.71), p=.047) and was also different in the decision aids arm from the usual care arm (AOR=2.65 (95% CI: 1.16 to 6.07), p=.021), however these differences were not robust to adjustment for multiple comparisons. There were no intervention effects on the secondary outcomes among all participants nor among prespecified subgroups. With respect to intervention feasibility, rates of participant-reported exposure to the relevant intervention components were 9.4% for the video arm, 31.5% for the decision aids arm, and 5.0% for the dual arm. All interventions were acceptable to most patients.Conclusions The interventions studied are unlikely to have a meaningful population-wide impact on shared decision-making or other outcomes in real-world contraceptive care without additional strategies to promote and support implementation. Selective use of the interventions among patients with limited health literacy may be more promising and, if effective, could reduce disparities in shared decision-making.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02759939.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Disclosure Form. In addition to the disclosure of funding sources (see Disclosure of funding sources and role of the funding sources): RT discloses research grants on topics related to shared decision-making from the Society of Family Planning, the Women's Health Initiative Translational Unit, and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute; the receipt of personal royalties from Oxford University Press from the sale of a book on shared decision-making; and ownership of copyright in several shared decision-making interventions. GS discloses research grants on topics related to shared decision-making from the Society of Family Planning and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. GE discloses the receipt of personal royalties from EBSCO Health for the licence to use the Option Grid patient decision aids trademark and the receipt of personal consulting fees from EBSCO Health. RM, KZD, DA, ZL, MB, MBB, PB, CCB, TF, DJJ, SM, JN, MN, ALO, HLS, LFS, TDT, LT, and KKU make no other disclosures.Clinical TrialClinicalTrials.gov NCT02759939Clinical Protocols https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/10/e017830 Funding StatementDisclosure of funding sources and role of the funding sources Research reported in this paper was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI®) Award (CDR-1403-12221). Apart from requiring adherence to established methodology standards, PCORI® had no role in the design of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; the writing of this paper; or the decision to submit this paper for publication. A report describing this research previously underwent a peer review process established and coordinated by PCORI®. The research team made revisions to the report in response to feedback from external peer reviewers and PCORI® staff, some of which are also reflected in this paper, but made no substantive revisions in response to feedback from PCORI® staff. The time contributed by ZL and TDT to reporting this research was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (UL1TR001086). The NIH had no role in the design of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; the writing of this paper; or the decision to submit this paper for publication. Disclaimer The statements, findings, and conclusions presented in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee, the National Institutes of Health, or the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Dartmouth College Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (#00028721) and by the Care New England Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island Institutional Review Board (#855723-1).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRequests for access to anonymised data for research purposes may be submitted to the corresponding author.