Cargando…
Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does n...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533610/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05042-x |
_version_ | 1784802381590953984 |
---|---|
author | León-García, Montserrat Humphries, Brittany Maraboto, Andrea Rabassa, Montserrat Boehmer, Kasey R. Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth Xie, Feng Pelayo, Irene Eckman, Mark Bates, Shannon Selva, Anna Alonso-Coello, Pablo |
author_facet | León-García, Montserrat Humphries, Brittany Maraboto, Andrea Rabassa, Montserrat Boehmer, Kasey R. Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth Xie, Feng Pelayo, Irene Eckman, Mark Bates, Shannon Selva, Anna Alonso-Coello, Pablo |
author_sort | León-García, Montserrat |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does not cross the placenta, and is safe for the fetus. However, the use of LMWH during pregnancy is sensitive to womens’ underlying preferences. The objective of this review is to systematically assess women’s values and preferences research evidence on this topic. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 2022, and included studies examining values and preferences of using LMWH among pregnant women at risk of VTE. We followed a convergent integrated mixed-methods design to compare and contrast quantitative outcomes (utility and non-utility measures) and qualitative findings. We assessed the certainty of the values and preferences evidence with the GRADE approach for quantitative findings, and with GRADE-CERqual for qualitative evidence. Results were presented in a conjoint display. RESULTS: We screened 3,393 references and identified seven eligible studies. The mixed methods analysis resulted in four themes. Datasets confirmed each other in that: 1) the majority of women consider that benefits of treatment outweigh the inconveniences of daily injections; and 2) main concerns around medication are safety and injections administration. Quantitative outcomes expanded on the qualitative findings in that: 3) participants who perceived a higher risk of VTE were more willing to take LMWH. Finally, we found a discrepancy between the datasets around: 4) the amount of information preferred to make the decision; however, qualitative data expanded to clarify that women prefer making informed decisions and receive support from their clinician in their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately confident that in the context of pregnancy, using LMWH is preferred by women given its net beneficial balance. Integrating data from different sources of evidence, and representing them in a jointly manner helps to identify patient’s values and preferences. Our results may inform clinical practice guidelines and support shared decision-making process in the clinical encounter for the management of VTE in the context of pregnancy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-05042-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9533610 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95336102022-10-06 Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review León-García, Montserrat Humphries, Brittany Maraboto, Andrea Rabassa, Montserrat Boehmer, Kasey R. Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth Xie, Feng Pelayo, Irene Eckman, Mark Bates, Shannon Selva, Anna Alonso-Coello, Pablo BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does not cross the placenta, and is safe for the fetus. However, the use of LMWH during pregnancy is sensitive to womens’ underlying preferences. The objective of this review is to systematically assess women’s values and preferences research evidence on this topic. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 2022, and included studies examining values and preferences of using LMWH among pregnant women at risk of VTE. We followed a convergent integrated mixed-methods design to compare and contrast quantitative outcomes (utility and non-utility measures) and qualitative findings. We assessed the certainty of the values and preferences evidence with the GRADE approach for quantitative findings, and with GRADE-CERqual for qualitative evidence. Results were presented in a conjoint display. RESULTS: We screened 3,393 references and identified seven eligible studies. The mixed methods analysis resulted in four themes. Datasets confirmed each other in that: 1) the majority of women consider that benefits of treatment outweigh the inconveniences of daily injections; and 2) main concerns around medication are safety and injections administration. Quantitative outcomes expanded on the qualitative findings in that: 3) participants who perceived a higher risk of VTE were more willing to take LMWH. Finally, we found a discrepancy between the datasets around: 4) the amount of information preferred to make the decision; however, qualitative data expanded to clarify that women prefer making informed decisions and receive support from their clinician in their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately confident that in the context of pregnancy, using LMWH is preferred by women given its net beneficial balance. Integrating data from different sources of evidence, and representing them in a jointly manner helps to identify patient’s values and preferences. Our results may inform clinical practice guidelines and support shared decision-making process in the clinical encounter for the management of VTE in the context of pregnancy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-022-05042-x. BioMed Central 2022-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9533610/ /pubmed/36199014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05042-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research León-García, Montserrat Humphries, Brittany Maraboto, Andrea Rabassa, Montserrat Boehmer, Kasey R. Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth Xie, Feng Pelayo, Irene Eckman, Mark Bates, Shannon Selva, Anna Alonso-Coello, Pablo Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title | Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_full | Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_fullStr | Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_short | Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
title_sort | women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533610/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05042-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leongarciamontserrat womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT humphriesbrittany womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT marabotoandrea womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT rabassamontserrat womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT boehmerkaseyr womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT peresteloperezlilisbeth womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT xiefeng womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT pelayoirene womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT eckmanmark womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT batesshannon womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT selvaanna womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview AT alonsocoellopablo womensvaluesandpreferencesonlowmolecularweightheparinandpregnancyamixedmethodssystematicreview |