Cited by 21Health Policy Implementation SciencePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient Involvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Co-designing a theory-informed intervention to increase shared decision-making in maternity care

Open access

Abstract

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) has been shown to improve healthcare outcomes and is a recognized right of patients. Policy requires health services to implement SDM. However, there is limited research into what interventions work and for what reasons. The aim of the study was to develop a series of interventions to increase the use of SDM in maternity care with stakeholders. Methods: Interventions to increase the use of SDM in the setting of pregnancy care were developed using Behaviour Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework and building on findings of an in-depth qualitative study which were inductively analysed. Intervention development workshops involved co-design, with patients, clinicians, health service administrators and decision-makers, and government policy makers. Workshops focused on identifying viable SDM opportunities and tailoring interventions to the local context (the Royal Women’s Hospital) and salient qualitative themes. Results: Pain management options during labour were identified by participants as a high priority for application of SDM, and three interventions were developed including patient and clinician access to the Victorian Government’s maternity record via the patient portal and electronic medical records (EMR); a multi-layered persuasive communications campaign designed; and clinical champions and SDM simulation training. Factors identified by participants for successful implementation included having alignment with strategic direction of the service, support of leaders, using pre-standing resources and workflows, using clinical champions, and ensuring equity. Conclusion: Three interventions co-designed to increase the use of SDM for pain management during labour address key barriers and facilitators to SDM in maternity care. This study exemplifies how health services can use behavioural science and co-design principles to increase the use of SDM. Insights into the co-design of interventions to implement SDM in routine practice provide a framework for other health services, policy makers and researchers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12961-023-00959-x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although shared decision‐making is the preferred model in maternity care, the unexpected diagnosis of GDM can initially limit women's ability to participate fully until information has been provided and understanding has been developed.

    “It is also important to recognise that although shared decision‐making is the preferred model in maternity care [38], the unexpected diagnosis of GDM can initially limit women's ability to participate fully until information has been provided and understanding has been developed.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Commission on Safety A, in Health Care Q. National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards Second edition Published by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2017.
  2. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches - John W. Creswell, Cheryl N. Poth. Sage Publications. 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Waddell, A., Spassova, G., Sampson, L., Jungbluth, L., Dam, J., & Bragge, P.
Affiliations
  • Government of Victoria (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Waddell, Alex
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published
2023-01-31
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4318700678
Cited by
20
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Australian Government Research Training Program
  • Safer Care Victoria
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
shared decision-making, obstetric care, labor analgesia, intervention development, co-design, Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical Domains Framework, patient portals, electronic health records, clinical champions, simulation-based training, implementation barriers and facilitators
MeSH terms
Administrative Personnel, Female, Humans, Maternal Health Services, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Problem Solving, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review