Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 9/2019

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Stress Incontinence | Original Article

Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery

Authors: Swati Jha, Jonathan Duckett

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Patient decision aids (PDAs) facilitate shared decision making allowing patients to make decisions about their healthcare that take into account their personal values and preferences. The aim of this study was to establish whether a PDA used in women requiring stress incontinence surgery is helpful to women when making choices about the treatments they choose by using a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS).

Methods

Forty-five consecutive women were identified as having stress urinary incontinence and had completed all conservative treatments. All patients included in the study had stress urinary incontinence confirmed on urodynamic testing and were given the PDA at the point where they needed to make a decision about surgery. Following completion of the PDA, patients were given a DCS to complete which measures personal perceptions of uncertainty when making a decision about treatment.

Results

Forty-three out of 45 (95.5%) patients scored 4/4 for the DCS indicating they were sure of their decision. Two patients (4.5%) scored 3/4 and were therefore unsure of their choice. No patient scored < 3 on the DCS. The choice of procedures varied in all the ages and two women opted to have no treatment.

Conclusions

The use of a PDA in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence reduces decision conflict and ensures patients are sure of their decision, understand the information provided as well as the risk benefit ratio of the various options and feel they have adequate support and advice to make a choice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference GMC. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. GMC, editor. 2008. Ref Type: Internet Communication. GMC. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. GMC, editor. 2008. Ref Type: Internet Communication.
2.
go back to reference McAlpine K, Lewis KB, Trevena LJ, Stacey D. What is the effectiveness of patient decision aids for cancer-related decisions? A systematic review subanalysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–13.CrossRefPubMed McAlpine K, Lewis KB, Trevena LJ, Stacey D. What is the effectiveness of patient decision aids for cancer-related decisions? A systematic review subanalysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018;2:1–13.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Reder M, Kolip P. Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Reder M, Kolip P. Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMed Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis KB. Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions. JAMA. 2017;318(7):657–8.CrossRefPubMed Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis KB. Patient decision aids to engage adults in treatment or screening decisions. JAMA. 2017;318(7):657–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, Drake ER, Fiset V, Graham ID, Laupacis A, Tugwell P. The Ottawa patient decision aids. Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2(4):163–70.PubMed O’Connor AM, Drake ER, Fiset V, Graham ID, Laupacis A, Tugwell P. The Ottawa patient decision aids. Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2(4):163–70.PubMed
7.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. User manual-decisional conflict scale. 2010. Ref Type: Online Source. O’Connor AM. User manual-decisional conflict scale. 2010. Ref Type: Online Source.
9.
go back to reference Legare F, Kearing S, Clay K, et al. Are you SURE?: assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(8):e308–14.PubMedPubMedCentral Legare F, Kearing S, Clay K, et al. Are you SURE?: assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(8):e308–14.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference House of Lords. IMMD safety review. 2018. Ref Type: Online Source. House of Lords. IMMD safety review. 2018. Ref Type: Online Source.
12.
go back to reference Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Montori VM. Shared decision making and the importance of time. JAMA. 2019. Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Montori VM. Shared decision making and the importance of time. JAMA. 2019.
Metadata
Title
Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery
Authors
Swati Jha
Jonathan Duckett
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03982-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

International Urogynecology Journal 9/2019 Go to the issue