Women's Preferences for Aspects of Labor Management: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Background: The latent phase of labor can vary greatly in duration, and many women are uncertain about when to contact the maternity unit. The aim of this study was to elicit and value women's preferences for some aspects of labor management. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 1,251 women who had recently given birth to their first child at one of 14 maternity units in Scotland. Discrete choice questions were used to measure women's preferences for five attributes of care: number of visits (assessments) before admission to the labor ward, time spent on the labor ward before delivery, mobility during labor, pain relief required, and mode of delivery. Responses were analyzed for the sample as a whole and for subgroups defined by recent experiences of labor. Results: A total of 730 (58.4%) questionnaires were returned and analyzed. Women expressed a preference for fewer visits before admission, shorter times on the labor ward before delivery, mobility during labor, normal vaginal deliveries, and moderate forms of pain relief (Entonox and opiates). Subgroup analysis suggests that women's preferences for pain relief are influenced by their recent labor experience. The elicited preference values provide a means for estimating the tradeoffs women are willing to make between attributes of labor management. Conclusions: Women appear to dislike being turned away from the labor ward before admission for delivery. Extra visits before admission only appear to be a price worth paying if they result in reductions in the duration of time spent on the labor ward, reductions in the chance of being immobilized in hospital during labor, or a lower chance of requiring an instrumental or operative delivery

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases. METHODS: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences. RESULTS: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences