Interventions to support shared decision-making for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review

This review studies women's preferences for shared decision-making about heavy menstrual bleeding treatment and evaluates interventions that support shared decision-making and their effectiveness. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Three research questions were predefined: 1) What is the range of perspectives gathered in studies that examine women facing a decision related to heavy menstrual bleeding management?; 2) What types of interventions have been developed to support shared decision-making for women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding?; and 3) In what way might women benefit from interventions that support shared decision-making? All original studies were included if the study population consisted of women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding. We used the TIDieR (Template for Intervention: Description and Replication) checklist to assess the quality of description and the reproducibility of interventions. Interventions were categorized using Grande et al. guidelines and collated and summarized outcomes measures into three categories: 1) patient-reported outcomes; 2) observer-reported outcomes; and 3) doctor-reported outcomes. Fifteen studies were included. Overall, patients preferred to decide together with their doctor (74%). Women's previsit preference was the strongest predictor for treatment choice in two studies. Information packages did not have a statistically significant effect on treatment choice or satisfaction. However, adding a structured interview or decision aid to increase patient involvement did show a positive effect on treatment choice and results, patient satisfaction and shared decision-making related outcomes. In conclusion shared decision-making is becoming more important in the care of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Structured interviews or well-designed (computerized) tools such as decision aids seem to facilitate this process, but there is room for improvement. A shared treatment choice is only possible after careful provision of information, elicitation of patients' preferences and integrating those preferences. Interventions should be designed accordingly