Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of technology-based decision aids on contraceptive use, continuation, and patient-reported and decision-making outcomes. DATA SOURCES:A systematic search was conducted in OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX databases from January 2005 to April 2022. Eligible references from a concurrent systematic review evaluating contraceptive care were also included for review. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies were included if a contraceptive decision aid was technology-based (ie, mobile/tablet application, web, or computer-based) and assessed contraceptive use and/or continuation or patient-reported outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, feasibility/acceptability/usability, decisional conflict). The protocol was registered under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021240755). METHODS:Three reviewers independently performed data abstraction and quality appraisal. Dichotomous outcomes (use and continuation) were evaluated with an odds ratio, whereas continuous outcomes (knowledge and self-efficacy) were evaluated with the mean difference. Subgroup analyses were performed for the mode of delivery (mobile and tablet applications vs web and computer-based) and follow-up time (immediate vs >1 month). RESULTS:This review included 18 studies evaluating 21 decision aids. Overall, there were higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation among decision aid users compared with controls (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [1.05-1.55]). Use of computer and web-based decision aids was associated with higher odds of contraceptive use and/or continuation (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, [1.08-1.72]) than mobile and tablet decision aids (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, [0.83-1.94]). Decision aid users also had statistically significant higher self-efficacy scores (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, [0.05-0.13]), and knowledge scores (mean difference, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, [0.01-0.07]), with immediate measurement of knowledge having higher retention than measurement after 1 month. Other outcomes were evaluated descriptively (eg, feasibility, applicability, decisional conflict) but had little evidence to support a definite conclusion. Overall, the review provided moderate-level evidence for contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSION:The use of technology-based contraceptive decision aids to support contraceptive decision-making has positive effects on contraceptive use and continuation, knowledge, and self-efficacy. There was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion about effects on other decision-making outcomes.