Literature DB >> 32389347

Patient Preferences and Decisional Needs When Choosing a Treatment Approach for Pregnancy Hypertension: A Stated Preference Study.

Rebecca K Metcalfe1, Mark Harrison2, Anna Hutfield3, Mary Lewisch4, Joel Singer5, Laura A Magee6, Nick Bansback5.   

Abstract

The Hypertension Canada 2018 clinical guidance for pregnancy hypertension recommends antihypertensive therapy for raised blood pressure in pregnancy to a target diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 85 mm Hg (ie, "tight" control). Although evidence shows this approach reduces the incidence of severe maternal hypertension without increasing risk to the baby, we do not know how pregnant women feel about this approach, particularly as they are generally medication averse. An online survey assessed pregnant women's preferences for management of pregnancy hypertension and explored decisional needs. The survey included information provision and knowledge assessment, a preference elicitation task, and a decisional needs assessment. Survey responses were analysed descriptively, by latent class analysis to identify treatment priority subgroups, and by logistic regression to assess predictors of treatment preference. For the 183 pregnant respondents, 3 treatment priority subgroups were identified, with most respondents expressing equal prioritization of treatment outcomes and components (eg, taking medication). Participants who preferred tight control (49%) were more often white (odds ratio [OR]: 2.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-4.55), with a university education/professional qualification (OR 1.95; 95% CI: 1.02-3.7), and had greater knowledge about pregnancy hypertension and pregnancy complications (OR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.15-1.65). Participants reported diverse decisional needs, but most preferred to make final treatment decisions themselves (70%), with (48%) or without (22%) physician input. The diversity of priorities, preferences, and decisional needs for management of pregnancy hypertension identified in this study emphasises the importance of an individualized approach to treatment recommendations.
Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32389347     DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.02.090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Cardiol        ISSN: 0828-282X            Impact factor:   5.223


  1 in total

Review 1.  The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Megan Thomas; Deborah A Marshall; Daksh Choudhary; Susan J Bartlett; Adalberto Loyola Sanchez; Glen S Hazlewood
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.481

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.