Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial☆,☆☆
Introduction
Like many health care decisions, the choice of a contraceptive method is a preference-sensitive decision. Women have multiple, sometimes competing, preferences for contraceptive method characteristics including effectiveness, frequency of use, and side effects [1], [2], [3], [4]. Method effectiveness is often cited as an important characteristic for the majority of women choosing contraception [1], [2]. However, the most effective reversible methods, intrauterine devices (IUD) and implants [5], are currently used by a minority (14.3%) of contracepting women [6]. The lower rate of IUD and implant uptake may be due to less patient desire for these methods, or reflects a lack of concordance between patient preferences and contraceptive method selected. If present, this lack of concordance may be due to inadequate patient knowledge, lack of awareness, or unclear values. A previous randomized trial of a computer-based, contraceptive tool found that women assigned to the intervention were more likely to choose an effective method of contraception compared to the control group [7].
One way to assist women in choosing contraception is through a patient decision aid. Decision aids increase knowledge, clarify personal values, and improve the match between values and healthcare choices [8]. Women making contraceptive decisions also rate computerized decision aids to be both helpful and enjoyable [7], [9], [10]. In one study, women who received a personalized print-out were more likely to continue use of their contraceptive method at 4 months [9]. Therefore, integration of a decision aid into the contraceptive decision making process may be a feasible, effective way to improve alignment between contraceptive preferences and method, which in turn may improve contraceptive use, satisfaction, and continuation.
In this study, we developed a tablet-based contraceptive decision aid designed to elicit women’s preferences for contraceptive characteristics and provide the top three reversible contraceptive recommendations that fit the woman’s preferences. We randomized participants to the decision aid or a tablet-based survey with items about general reproductive health (control group) prior to their healthcare provider visit. Our hypothesis was that women using the contraceptive decision aid would report a greater reduction in decisional conflict compared to the control group. Our secondary outcomes were to compare contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare provider between the randomized groups.
Section snippets
Algorithm development
We developed a tablet-based contraceptive decision aid designed to elicit individuals’ preferences about reversible contraception and provide information about options that aligned with these preferences. The decision aid contained items about past medical and reproductive history, prior contraceptive use, reproductive plans, and contraceptive preferences. Participants in the decision aid group viewed a list of 17 possible contraceptive preferences based on previous research (Appendix A) [1],
Participant characteristics
Between January and August 2014, we enrolled and randomized 253 women. Fig. 1 shows the comprehensive breakdown of recruitment and study flow. There were 167 women randomized to the contraceptive decision aid and 86 women randomized to the control group. The tablet malfunctioned for two participants (1 decision aid, 1 control group) without saving any data. We compared demographic and reproductive statistics for the 251 participants with available data. Two participants in the control group did
Discussion
In this randomized controlled trial, we found that use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception. Additionally, the contraceptive method chosen by the participant at the end of the visit did not differ between the two groups. Nearly 94% of women in the decision aid arm chose a contraceptive method consistent with at least one of their stated preferences.
Among our sample, baseline median decisional conflict scores
Acknowledgements
We thank Bedsider.org, a program of Power to Decide, for their assistance with programming the computerized contraceptive decision aid and sharing of digital content. We would like to thank Rachel Paul, MPH for her assistance with manuscript preparation.
References (29)
- et al.
The role of contraceptive attributes in women’s contraceptive decision making
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2015) - et al.
What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making
Contraception
(2014) - et al.
Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014
Contraception
(2018) - et al.
Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based module to improve contraceptive method choice
Contraception
(2012) - et al.
Tailored health messaging improves contraceptive continuation and adherence: results from a randomized controlled trial
Contraception
(2012) - et al.
Feasibility and acceptability of a computer-based tool to improve contraceptive counseling
Contraception
(2014) - et al.
Why use placebos in clinical trials? A narrative review of the methodological literature
J Clin Epidemiol
(2000) - et al.
Evaluation of the effect of a patient decision aid about vasectomy on the decision-making process: a randomized trial
Contraception
(2010) - et al.
Results from a randomized trial of a web-based, tailored decision aid for women at high risk for breast cancer
Patient Educ Couns
(2013) - et al.
The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners
J Biomed Inform
(2019)
Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support
J Biomed Inform
Contraceptive features preferred by women at high risk of unintended pregnancy
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
The relationship between contraceptive features preferred by young women and interest in IUDs: an exploratory analysis
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
Cited by (5)
Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2022, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyCitation Excerpt :The 4-month follow-up study27 showed a high continuation rate for both intervention arms, with the tailored decision aid having a higher continuation than the control group (aOR, 5.48; 95% CI, 1.72–17.42). Eight studies (N=3700)26,29,30,32–34,37,38 demonstrated statistically significantly higher contraceptive knowledge scores among decision aid users (mean difference [MD], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05–0.13; I2=53.86%; P=.05) than control participants. Meaning, on average, decision aid users were 9 percentage points more likely to retain correct contraceptive knowledge than their control counterparts.
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
2024, Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsDeveloping and Testing a Chatbot to Integrate HIV Education Into Family Planning Clinic Waiting Areas in Lusaka, Zambia
2022, Global Health Science and Practice
- ☆
Funding: This research was supported in part by: (1) the Society of Family Planning (SFP, grant numbers SFP3-1, SFP5-8) and (2) the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) (grant number K23HD070979). The funders had no role in the identification, design, conduct, and reporting on this analysis. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of NICHD.
- ☆☆
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Madden serves on a data safety monitoring board for phase 4 safety studies of Bayer contraceptive products. Dr. Peipert receives research funding from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, CooperSurgical/TEVA, and Merck & Co, Inc. and serves on an advisory board for CooperSurgical Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Politi receives research funding from Merck & Co. The other authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to report.