Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean.
Pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth and who have no contraindication for vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) may need to decide whether to choose between a repeat caesarean birth or to commence labour with the intention of achieving a VBAC. Women need information about their options and interventions designed to support decision-making may be helpful. Decision support interventions can be implemented independently, or shared with health professionals during clinical encounters or used in mediated social encounters with others, such as telephone decision coaching services. Decision support interventions can include decision aids, one-on-one counselling, group information or support sessions and decision protocols or algorithms. This review considers any decision support intervention for pregnant women making birth choices after a previous caesarean birth.
To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support decision-making about vaginal birth after a caesarean birth.Secondary objectives are to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013), Current Controlled Trials (22 July 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (22 July 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also conducted citation searches of included studies to identify possible concurrent qualitative studies.
All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials with reported data of any intervention designed to support pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean birth make decisions about their options for birth. Studies using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form only would have been eligible for inclusion if data were able to be extracted.
Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria and carried out data extraction and quality assessment of studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors of included trials for additional information. All included interventions were classified as independent, shared or mediated decision supports. Consensus was obtained for classifications. Verification of the final list of included studies was undertaken by three review authors.
Three randomised controlled trials involving 2270 women from high-income countries were eligible for inclusion in the review. Outcomes were reported for 1280 infants in one study. The interventions assessed in the trials were designed to be used either independently by women or mediated through the involvement of independent support. No studies looked at shared decision supports, that is, interventions designed to facilitate shared decision-making with health professionals during clinical encounters.We found no difference in planned mode of birth: VBAC (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.10; I² = 0%) or caesarean birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; I² = 0%). The proportion of women unsure about preference did not change (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; I² = 0%).There was no difference in adverse outcomes reported between intervention and control groups (one trial, 1275 women/1280 babies): permanent (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36); severe (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.36); unclear (0.66, 95% CI 0.27, 1.61). Overall, 64.8% of those indicating preference for VBAC achieved it, while 97.1% of those planning caesarean birth achieved this mode of birth. We found no difference in the proportion of women achieving congruence between preferred and actual mode of birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07) (three trials, 1921 women).More women had caesarean births (57.3%), including 535 women where it was unplanned (42.6% all caesarean deliveries and 24.4% all births). We found no difference in actual mode of birth between groups, (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06) (three trials, 2190 women).Decisional conflict about preferred mode of birth was lower (less uncertainty) for women with decisional support (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.02; two trials, 787 women; I² = 48%). There was also a significant increase in knowledge among women with decision support compared with those in the control group (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; two trials, 787 women; I² = 65%). However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the two studies contributing to this outcome ( I² = 65%) and attrition was greater than 15 per cent and the evidence for this outcome is considered to be moderate quality only. There was no difference in satisfaction between women with decision support and those without it (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20; two trials, 797 women; I² = 0%). No study assessed decisional regret or whether women's information needs were met.Qualitative data gathered in interviews with women and health professionals provided information about acceptability of the decision support and its feasibility of implementation. While women liked the decision support there was concern among health professionals about their impact on their time and workload.
Evidence is limited to independent and mediated decision supports. Research is needed on shared decision support interventions for women considering mode of birth in a pregnancy after a caesarean birth to use with their care providers.
Horey D
，Kealy M
，Davey MA
，Small R
，Crowther CA
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.
There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns.
To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response.
Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice.
We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies.
Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.
Mackintosh NJ
，Davis RE
，Easter A
，Rayment-Jones H
，Sevdalis N
，Wilson S
，Adams M
，Sandall J
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.
Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).
To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.
There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.
Lindson N
，Pritchard G
，Hong B
，Fanshawe TR
，Pipe A
，Papadakis S
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
