Digital Patient Decision Aids for Endometriosis Management: A Scoping Review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Océane Pittet, Marion Delvallée, Nicola Pluchino, Kevin Selby, Glyn Elwyn, Marie-Anne Durand
{"title":"Digital Patient Decision Aids for Endometriosis Management: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Océane Pittet, Marion Delvallée, Nicola Pluchino, Kevin Selby, Glyn Elwyn, Marie-Anne Durand","doi":"10.1111/hex.70881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis treatment requires women to navigate complex, preference-sensitive decisions. Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) help patients make value-aligned choices. However, the scope and quality of digital PtDAs for endometriosis, and the cap acity of conversational AI platforms to act as PtDAs, remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Systematically map digital PtDAs for women of reproductive age with endometriosis, describe their content, development, and evaluation, and assess quality and replicability.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>Electronic databases, Google Scholar, grey literature, and web searches were conducted from inception to July 2025.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included digital PtDAs for women aged 18-49 with a clinical diagnosis of endometriosis that met the minimum criteria established to qualify as a PtDA. Additionally, we developed a prompt to generate five PtDAs using conversational AI platforms, mirroring patient or clinician decision-support queries.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two independent reviewers extracted data per Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping reviews methodology. IPDAS criteria (requirements for PtDAs) and TIDieR items (intervention reporting) were applied; data were summarised descriptively and qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten PtDAs were included (five expert-developed; five AI-generated). Overall, most addressed pharmacological and surgical options, while AI-generated PtDAs included more complementary therapies. All described the health condition, decision, and options with balanced pros/cons, but most failed on important IPDAS criteria for high-quality PtDAs. Most expert-developed PtDAs also lacked transparent development reporting and had not been formally evaluated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Few digital PtDAs for endometriosis were identified; most showed limited adherence to IPDAS criteria, poor reporting transparency, and absent formal evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"29 5","pages":"e70881"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13614076/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70881","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endometriosis treatment requires women to navigate complex, preference-sensitive decisions. Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) help patients make value-aligned choices. However, the scope and quality of digital PtDAs for endometriosis, and the cap acity of conversational AI platforms to act as PtDAs, remain unclear.

Objectives: Systematically map digital PtDAs for women of reproductive age with endometriosis, describe their content, development, and evaluation, and assess quality and replicability.

Search strategy: Electronic databases, Google Scholar, grey literature, and web searches were conducted from inception to July 2025.

Selection criteria: We included digital PtDAs for women aged 18-49 with a clinical diagnosis of endometriosis that met the minimum criteria established to qualify as a PtDA. Additionally, we developed a prompt to generate five PtDAs using conversational AI platforms, mirroring patient or clinician decision-support queries.

Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted data per Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping reviews methodology. IPDAS criteria (requirements for PtDAs) and TIDieR items (intervention reporting) were applied; data were summarised descriptively and qualitatively.

Results: Ten PtDAs were included (five expert-developed; five AI-generated). Overall, most addressed pharmacological and surgical options, while AI-generated PtDAs included more complementary therapies. All described the health condition, decision, and options with balanced pros/cons, but most failed on important IPDAS criteria for high-quality PtDAs. Most expert-developed PtDAs also lacked transparent development reporting and had not been formally evaluated.

Conclusions: Few digital PtDAs for endometriosis were identified; most showed limited adherence to IPDAS criteria, poor reporting transparency, and absent formal evaluation.

子宫内膜异位症管理的数字化患者决策辅助:范围审查。
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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
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