Patient Decision Aids for Women With Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.2 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Tsung Mou, Emily Bulczynski, Hailey Greenstone, Sofia Walters, Grace Doyle, Judy Rabinowitz, John B Wong, Michael K Paasche-Orlow
{"title":"Patient Decision Aids for Women With Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Tsung Mou, Emily Bulczynski, Hailey Greenstone, Sofia Walters, Grace Doyle, Judy Rabinowitz, John B Wong, Michael K Paasche-Orlow","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Across the urinary incontinence (UI) care continuum, women face multiple decision points from seeking an evaluation to selecting and pursuing treatment. Patient decision aids (PDAs) may facilitate decision making for UI care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to evaluate the availability, effectiveness, and quality of PDAs for women with UI.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched from 2005, when the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) framework was introduced and the International Continence Society released updated UI definitions, through February 2026. Eligible studies evaluated PDAs for stress, urgency, or mixed UI. Primary outcomes followed the IPDAS framework and included attributes of the decision-making process, attributes of the choice, and health service outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3,737 records screened, 9 studies met criteria, included 956 women (mean age 48-69 years). All PDAs focused on treatment selection in specialty care; none addressed care-seeking decisions or care occurred in primary care. Although these PDAs were associated with reduced decisional conflict, evidence for improved knowledge, patient-clinician communication, or satisfaction was lacking. Despite 8 of 9 studies meeting more than half of the IPDAS criteria, the overall risk of bias was high due to nonrandomized designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing PDAs for women with UI focus on reducing uncertainty about treatment selection in specialty care, yet do not show a causal effect of PDA reducing decision conflict or address the foundational decision of whether to seek care. Future PDA development should span the full care continuum and ensure rigorous evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":"1023-1033"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Across the urinary incontinence (UI) care continuum, women face multiple decision points from seeking an evaluation to selecting and pursuing treatment. Patient decision aids (PDAs) may facilitate decision making for UI care.

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the availability, effectiveness, and quality of PDAs for women with UI.

Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched from 2005, when the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) framework was introduced and the International Continence Society released updated UI definitions, through February 2026. Eligible studies evaluated PDAs for stress, urgency, or mixed UI. Primary outcomes followed the IPDAS framework and included attributes of the decision-making process, attributes of the choice, and health service outcomes.

Results: Of 3,737 records screened, 9 studies met criteria, included 956 women (mean age 48-69 years). All PDAs focused on treatment selection in specialty care; none addressed care-seeking decisions or care occurred in primary care. Although these PDAs were associated with reduced decisional conflict, evidence for improved knowledge, patient-clinician communication, or satisfaction was lacking. Despite 8 of 9 studies meeting more than half of the IPDAS criteria, the overall risk of bias was high due to nonrandomized designs.

Conclusions: Existing PDAs for women with UI focus on reducing uncertainty about treatment selection in specialty care, yet do not show a causal effect of PDA reducing decision conflict or address the foundational decision of whether to seek care. Future PDA development should span the full care continuum and ensure rigorous evaluation.

女性尿失禁患者决策辅助:一项系统综述。
重要性:在尿失禁(UI)护理连续体中,女性面临着从寻求评估到选择和追求治疗的多个决策点。患者决策辅助工具(pda)可以促进UI护理的决策制定。目的:目的是评价前列腺癌对女性泌尿系患者的可用性、有效性和质量。研究设计:按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science和Cochrane Central检索自2005年至2026年2月,即国际患者决策辅助标准(IPDAS)框架引入和国际失禁协会发布更新的UI定义时。符合条件的研究评估了pda的压力、紧急或混合性UI。主要结果遵循IPDAS框架,包括决策过程属性、选择属性和卫生服务结果。结果:在筛选的3737份记录中,9项研究符合标准,包括956名女性(平均年龄48-69岁)。所有pda都侧重于专科护理的治疗选择;没有一个涉及到寻求护理的决定或在初级保健中发生的护理。虽然这些pda与减少决策冲突有关,但缺乏改善知识、医患沟通或满意度的证据。尽管9项研究中有8项达到了IPDAS标准的一半以上,但由于非随机设计,总体偏倚风险很高。结论:现有针对女性尿失尿患者的PDA侧重于减少专科护理中治疗选择的不确定性,但并未显示PDA减少决策冲突的因果效应或解决是否求医的基本决策。未来PDA的发展应跨越完整的护理连续体,并确保严格的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书