Back to Authors

Pelayo, Irene

0000-0002-3532-5265

Mayo Clinic

Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal

Citations 2

Values and preferences towards the use of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin during pregnancy: A convergent mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-T
Xie, Feng , Gravholt, Derek, Bates, Shannon M. , Hargraves, Ian , Pelayo, Irene , López, Sandra Redondo , Caño, Juan Antonio Millón, Alcántara, Milagros A Suito, Jack, Susan M. , Gravholt, Derek L.

No container title available | January 3, 2024 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-3807726/v1 Get It

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals’ preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals’ preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy. Methods: Design: Convergent mixed-methods. Participants: Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk. Intervention: A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy. Analysis: Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke’s pentad of motives framework: scene, agent, agency, act, and purpose. We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance. Results: The least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a ‘healthy pregnancy’). Women's previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks described (agency). The main goal was avoiding the risk of VTE (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance between motives and DVT and PE health states. Discordance appeared between using daily injections of LMWH and agent- and agency motives and between MOB and the agency motive. Conclusions: Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of women's LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.
Women’s values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review
Humphries, Brittany , Maraboto, Andrea , Boehmer, Kasey R. , Xie, Feng , PELAYO, IRENE, Bates, Shannon M. , COELLO, PABLO ALONSO-, León‐García, Montserrat , Rabassa, Montserrat , Perestelo‐Pérez, Lilisbeth , Pelayo, Irene , Eckman, Mark H. , Selva, Anna , Alonso‐Coello, Pablo

No container title available | July 19, 2022 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1835329/v1 Get It

Abstract 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 (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.