Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Pelvic organ prolapse and treatment decisions– developing an online preference-sensitive tool to support shared decisions

Authors: Mette Hulbaek, Eva Knutz, Niels Teglhus Ebbesen, Jette Primdahl, Jesper Bo Nielsen, Regner Birkelund

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Female patients with pelvic organ prolapse and clinicians need to take decisions regarding treatment that are often unpredictable in relation to how they impact the future everyday lives of the patients.
This study formed the developmental phase of a larger study to develop and test an online tool to support shared decision-making.

Methods

Patients, health care professionals and other stakeholders participated in the development and evaluation process of this tool. The collected data was generated from observational studies, exploratory interviews with prompt cards and workshops with end users from four Danish gynecology outpatient clinics.

Results

Content analysis led to important themes. For the patients three themes emerged: 1) how the impact of symptoms on everyday life affected the need for relief, 2) their bodily perception and sex life and 3) their worries about the future. For clinicians the different symptoms and their severity was a main theme.

Conclusions

This article provides an overall description and discussion of the development methodology. It demonstrates how user involvement informed the prototyping process and how patients’ preferences were included in the final prototype. Whether the tool actually increases SDM, remains to be tested in a pilot feasibility study.
Literature
1.
Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A. Incontinence 6th edition. 6th ed. Bristol: ICI-ICS. International Continence Society; 2017.
3.
Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Chan SS, Cheung RY, Yiu KW, Lee LL, Pang AW, Chung TK. Symptoms, quality of life, and factors affecting women's treatment decisions regarding pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(8):1027–33.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Mouritsen L, Larsen JP. Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(2):122–7.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet (London, England). 2007;369(9566):1027–38.CrossRef
7.
Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Davis G, Dmochowski RR, et al. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(3):178–86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Hagen S, Stark D. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:Cd003882.
9.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:Cd004014.PubMed
10.
Dumoulin C, Hunter KF, Moore K, Bradley CS, Burgio KL, Hagen S, et al. Conservative management for female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse review 2013: summary of the 5th international consultation on incontinence. NeurourolUrodyn. 2016;35(1):15–20.
11.
Gutman RE, Ford DE, Quiroz LH, Shippey SH, Handa VL. Is there a pelvic organ prolapse threshold that predicts pelvic floor symptoms? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):683.e1–7.CrossRef
12.
Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE. Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1332–7 discussion 7-8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Symptoms and pelvic support defects in specific compartments. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(4):851–8.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Abhyankar P, Uny I, Semple K, Wane S, Hagen S, Wilkinson J, et al. Women's experiences of receiving care for pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1):45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Coulter A. Engaging patients in healthcare. Maidenhead Berkshire: Open University Press; 2011.
16.
17.
Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Dahl Steffensen K, Hjelholt Baker V, Vinter MM. Implementing shared decision making in Denmark: first steps and future focus areas. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 2017;123–124:36–40.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Videnscenter for Brugerinddragelse i Sundhedsvæsenet (ViBIS). Læger og sygeplejerskers forståelse af patientinddragelse. En spørgeskemaundersøgelse blandt ansatte på hospitaler. (physicians and nurses understanding of the concept of patient involvement. An interview study among hospital staff); 2014. Report No.: 978–87–996473-1-6.
20.
Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2017;359:j4891.CrossRef
21.
Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed
22.
Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2006;333(7565):417.CrossRef
23.
Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S2.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Medical Decision Making. 2014;34(6):699–710.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Elwyn G. Power imbalance prevents shared decision making. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2014;348:g3178.
26.
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
French RS, Cowan FM, Wellings K, Dowie J. The development of a multi-criteria decision analysis aid to help with contraceptive choices: my contraception tool. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(2):96–101.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kassan EC, Williams RM, Kelly SP, Barry SA, Penek S, Fishman MB, et al. Men's use of an internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):677–97.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Brazell HD, O'Sullivan DM, Forrest A, Greene JF. Effect of a decision aid on decision making for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):231–5.31.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Holzblatt K, Beyer H. Contextual design : Design for Life. 2nd ed. Cambridge: 2017, 1998 Elsevier Inc; 2017.
33.
Spradley JP. The ethnographic interview. Belmont: Wadsworth; 1979.
34.
Bødker KKF, Simonsen J. Participatory IT design. Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004.CrossRef
35.
Sanders EB-N, Brandt E, Binder T. A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference; 2010. p. 195–8.CrossRef
36.
Simonsen J, Robertson T. Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York: Routledge; 2013.
37.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):93–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of observer OPTION (5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(8):970–6.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Lowder JL, Ghetti C, Nikolajski C, Oliphant SS, Zyczynski HM. Body image perceptions in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(5):441.e1–5.CrossRef
40.
Sung VW, Rogers RG, Barber MD, Clark MA. Conceptual framework for patient-important treatment outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse. NeurourolUrodyn. 2014;33(4):414–9.
41.
42.
Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interview. Introduktion til et håndværk. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag; 2009.
43.
Hill T, Westbrook R. SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Plann. 1997;30(1):46–52.CrossRef
44.
Kujala S. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour Information Technol. 2003;22(1):1–16.CrossRef
45.
Kushniruk A, Nohr C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:139–51.PubMed
46.
Danbjørg DB, Wagner L, Clemensen J. Designing, developing, and testing an app for parents being discharged early postnatally. J Nurse Pract. 2014;10(10):794–802.CrossRef
47.
Shorten A, Fagerlin A, Illuzzi J, Kennedy HP, Lakehomer H, Pettker CM, et al. Developing an internet-based decision aid for women choosing between vaginal birth after cesarean and planned repeat cesarean. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(4):390–400.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Sundheds- og ældreministeriet, Kommuners Landsorganisation, Danske Regioner. Nationale mål for Sundhedsvæsenet. 2018.
49.
Sandvei M, Hørder M. Patienten som partner i dansk sundhedsforskning: Vidensdeling og kortlægning af patientinddragelse i forskning i Danmark. Syddansk universitet: Syddansk Universitet; 2018.
50.
Elwyn G, Kreuwel I, Durand MA, Sivell S, Joseph-Williams N, Evans R, et al. How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: a process map. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):260–5.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E. Cultural probes interactions; 1999 January + February 1999. p. 21–9.
52.
Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign: Int J CoCreation Design Arts. 2014;10(1):5–14.CrossRef
53.
Gaver W, Boucher A, Pennington S, Walker B. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty interactions; 2004 September + October 2004. p. 53–6.
54.
Barber MD, Walters MD, Cundiff GW. Responsiveness of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1492–8.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Due U, Brostrom S, Lose G. Validation of the pelvic floor distress Inventory-20 and the pelvic floor impact Questionnaire-7 in Danish women with pelvic organ prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(9):1041–8.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Frank AW. The wounded storyteller. Body, Illness & Ethics. Second edition ed. United States of America: The University of Chicago; 2013.
Metadata
Title
Pelvic organ prolapse and treatment decisions– developing an online preference-sensitive tool to support shared decisions
Authors
Mette Hulbaek
Eva Knutz
Niels Teglhus Ebbesen
Jette Primdahl
Jesper Bo Nielsen
Regner Birkelund
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01264-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Translation of evidence into kidney transplant clinical practice: managing drug-lab interactions by a context-aware clinical decision support system

Research article

Routine health information system in the health facilities in Yaoundé–Cameroon: assessing the gaps for strengthening

Correction

Correction to: The International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine 2019: computational methods for drug interactions

Research article

A fuzzy TOPSIS based analysis toward selection of effective security requirements engineering approach for trustworthy healthcare software development

Research article

A stacking-based model for predicting 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Research article

Interviews with experts in rare diseases for the development of clinical decision support system software - a qualitative study