Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research 2023-03, Vol.25 (1), p.e37953-e37953
• Main Authors: Wong, Hong Yat Conrad, Asim, Saba, Feng, Qi, Fu, Sherry Xiao-Hong, Sahota, Daljit Singh, So, Po Lam, Dong, Dong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Bias; Clinical decision making; Clinical outcomes; Clinical research; Clinical standards; Clinical trials; Decision making; Decision Support Techniques; Down syndrome; Female; Group decision making; Health care; Humans; Intervention; Medical technology; Meta-analysis; Multimedia; Patient Participation; Pregnancy; Prenatal care; Prenatal Diagnosis; Prenatal testing; Review; Risk assessment; Systematic review; Women; Womens health
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/37953

Increasing prenatal screening options and limited consultation time have made it difficult for pregnant women to participate in shared decision-making. Interactive digital decision aids (IDDAs) could integrate interactive technology into health care to a facilitate higher-quality decision-making process. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of IDDAs on pregnant women's decision-making regarding prenatal screening. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included studies until August 2021. We included the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of IDDAs (fulfilling basic criteria of International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration and these were interactive and digital) as an adjunct to standard care with standard care alone and involved pregnant women themselves in prenatal screening decision-making. Data on primary outcomes, that is, knowledge and decisional conflict, and secondary outcomes were extracted, and meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup analysis based on knowledge was performed. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Eight RCTs were identified from 10,283 references, of which 7 were included in quantitative synthesis. Analyses showed that IDDAs increased knowledge (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-0.90) and decreased decisional conflict (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05). Substantial heterogeneity in knowledge was identified, which could not be completely resolved through subgroup analysis. IDDAs can improve certain aspects of decision-making in prenatal screening among pregnant women, but the results require cautious interpretation.