Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated.

METHODS

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning).

RESULTS

We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15-0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21-0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32).

CONCLUSION

SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385 .

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Costs of care and financial hardship among patients with heart failure

With the implementation of new therapies, more patients are living with heart failure (HF) as a chronic condition. Alongside these advances, out-of-pocket (OOP) medical costs have increased, and patients experience significant financial burden. Despite increasing interest in understanding and mitigating financial burdens, there is a relative paucity of data specific to HF. Here, we explore financial hardship in HF from the patient perspective, including estimated OOP costs for guideline-directed medical therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction, hospitalizations, and total direct medical costs, as well as the consequences of high OOP costs. Studies estimate that high OOP costs are common in HF, and a large proportion are related to prescription drugs. Subsequently, the effects on patients can lead to worsening adherence, delayed care, and poor outcomes, leading to a financial toxicity spiral. Further, we summarize patients' cost preferences and outline future research that is needed to develop evidence-based solutions to reduce costs in HF.

A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in stroke rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

Existing research qualitatively explores consumer preferences for stroke rehabilitation interventions. However, it remains unclear which intervention characteristics are most important to consumers, and how these preferences may influence uptake and participation. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) provide a unique way to quantitatively measure preferences for health and health care. This study aims to explore how DCEs have been used in stroke rehabilitation and to identify reported consumer preferences for rehabilitation interventions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of published stroke rehabilitation DCEs was completed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021282578). Six databases (including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EconLIT) were searched from January 2000-March 2023. Data extracted included topic area, sample size, aim, attributes, design process, and preference outcomes. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted, and two methodological checklists applied to review quality.

RESULTS

Of 2,446 studies screened, five were eligible. Studies focused on exercise preference (n = 3), the structure and delivery of community services (n = 1), and self-management programs (n = 1). All had small sample sizes (range 50-146) and were of moderate quality (average score of 77%). Results indicated people have strong preferences for one-to-one therapy (over group-based), light-moderate intensity of exercise, and delivery by qualified therapists (over volunteers).

CONCLUSIONS

Few DCEs have been conducted in stroke rehabilitation, suggesting consumer preferences could be more rigorously explored. Included studies were narrow in the scope of attributes included, limiting their application to practice and policy. Further research is needed to assess the impact of differing service delivery models on uptake and participation.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Knowledge of quantifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk may improve health outcomes and trigger behavioural change in patients or clinicians. This review aimed to investigate the impact of CVD risk communication on patient-perceived CVD risk and changes in CVD risk factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to 6 June 2023, supplemented by citation analysis. Randomized trials that compared any CVD risk communication strategy versus usual care were included. Paired reviewers independently screened the identified records and extracted the data; disagreements were resolved by a third author. The primary outcome was the accuracy of risk perception. Secondary outcomes were clinician-reported changes in CVD risk, psychological responses, intention to modify lifestyle, and self-reported changes in risk factors and clinician prescribing of preventive medicines.

RESULTS

Sixty-two trials were included. Accuracy of risk perception was higher among intervention participants (odds ratio = 2.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 3.27). A statistically significant improvement in overall CVD risk scores was found at 6-12 months (mean difference = -0.27, 95% confidence interval = -0.45 to -0.09). For primary prevention, risk communication significantly increased self-reported dietary modification (odds ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.86) with no increase in intention or actual changes in smoking cessation or physical activity. A significant impact on patients' intention to start preventive medication was found for primary and secondary prevention, with changes at follow-up for the primary prevention group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, communicating CVD risk information, regardless of the method, reduced the overall risk factors and enhanced patients' self-perceived risk. Communication of CVD risk to patients should be considered in routine consultations.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Shared decision-making improving efficacy in diarrhoea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome in Chinese outpatient setting: protocol of a prospective, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Diarrhoea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is a disorder with multiple pathogenesis; many people with IBS-D may have psychosocial issues which can make assessment and treatment more difficult. Routine treatment procedure might not always achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, patients may not be satisfied with the conventional experience and would like to be more involved in clinical decision-making. A shared decision-making (SDM) model, that requires patient participation, has been demonstrated to have a powerful effect on the diagnosis and treatment of other diseases, which improves patients' compliance, satisfaction, thus refining the clinical outcome. However, there is no corresponding evidence in IBS-D. Herein, we hope to verify the effect of SDM through clinical studies, and we anticipate that SDM can improve the therapeutic effect in patients with IBS-D.

METHODS

The study is a prospective, randomised, single-centre trial. 166 IBS-D outpatients who attend Peking Union Medical College Hospital will be allocated into routine treatment group and SDM group. The primary endpoint is the severity of bowel symptoms, measured by the IBS symptom severity scale. Secondary endpoints include impact of disease and quality of life, negative psychology and the evaluation of diagnosis and treatment process.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the research ethics committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (I-23PJ470). This protocol has been approved by Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR2300073681) in July 2023. The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way and disseminated among gastrointestinal physicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR2300073681).

Nurses' perceptions of patient involvement in shared decision-making in cardiovascular care

It is important for nurses to involve patients in their own care to enable shared decision-making. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of nurses regarding the degree to which involvement in shared decision-making takes place in clinical settings during consultations. Previous studies have shown that the use of shared decision-making by healthcare professionals can improve their caring practices and the quality of life of their patients. However, studies have also shown little evidence of the existence of shared decision-making in clinical practice. One step forward can be to clarify nurses' perceptions of patient involvement in shared decision-making. Qualitative data were collected from 10 nurses at four Swedish hospitals using a semi-structured, open-ended interview guide. The data were analyzed using inductive latent content analysis. The results showed that the care practices described by the nurses in the study are clearly different from the healthcare policy and scientific vision of shared decision-making. The nurses in the study believe that, with some exceptions, both healthcare professionals and patients prefer to leave decision-making to medical experts. In order to take advantage of the existing potential for improvement of shared decision-making in cardiologic care, healthcare professionals must be given time to seriously listen to and develop an interest in their patients' lifeworlds. Furthermore, the implementation of shared decision-making requires a mutual initiative and development of knowledge about the decision-making process from healthcare professionals and patients.

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

RECENT FINDINGS

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management. By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.

Shared decision making for anticoagulation reduces anxiety and improves adherence in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Treatment with oral anticoagulants (OACs) could prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF), but side effects developed due to OACs may cause patients anxiety during decision making. This study aimed to investigate whether shared decision making (SDM) reduces anxiety and improves adherence to stroke prevention measures in patients with AF.

METHODS

A one-group pretest-posttest design using a questionnaire survey was applied at the outpatient cardiology clinic between July 2019 until September 2020. A Patient Decision Aid (PDA) tool was used for the completion of the questionnaire survey after health education and counseling. Ten questions were included for patients' recognition of SDM, and a 5-point scoring method was used, where "very much" was scored as 5 points, and "totally not" was scored as 1 point.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with AF were enrolled. In terms of patients' recognition of SDM, points of more than 4.17 out of 5 were noted, indicating recognition above the level of "very much." The patients' anxiety scores before SDM were 3.56 (1.2), with a decrease of 0.64 points (p < 0.001) to 2.92 (1.3) after SDM. After SDM, the number of patients who decided to take OAC increased from 76.9% to 88.5%, and the 15.4% answering "unclear" decreased to 1.9% (p = 0.006). The patients' anxiety levels after SDM were associated with gender (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

The approach using SDM enhanced our understanding of the pros and cons of OAC treatment and, in patients with AF, decreased anxiety about therapeutic decisions and increased willingness to accept treatment options.

Shared Decision-Making to Improve Health-Related Outcomes for Adults with Stroke Disease

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability and death worldwide, a severe medical condition for which new solutions for prevention, monitoring, and adequate treatment are needed. This paper proposes a SDM framework for the development of innovative and effective solutions based on artificial intelligence in the rehabilitation of stroke patients by empowering patients to make decisions about the use of devices and applications developed in the European project ALAMEDA. To develop a predictive tool for improving disability in stroke patients, key aspects of stroke patient data collection journeys, monitored health parameters, and specific variables covering motor, physical, emotional, cognitive, and sleep status are presented. The proposed SDM model involved the training and consultation of patients, medical staff, carers, and representatives under the name of the Local Community Group. Consultation with LCG members, consists of 11 representative people, physicians, nurses, patients and caregivers, which led to the definition of a methodological framework to investigate the key aspects of monitoring the patient data collection journey for the stroke pilot, and a specific questionnaire to collect stroke patient requirements and preferences. A set of general and specific guidelines specifying the principles by which patients decide to use wearable sensing devices and specific applications resulted from the analysis of the data collected using the questionnaire. The preferences and recommendations collected from LCG members have already been implemented in this stage of ALAMEDA system design and development.

Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore the level of participation in shared decision-making by patients with glaucoma and identify influencing factors, to subsequently provide references to promote shared decision-making in ophthalmology, and achieve patient-centered care.

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire was completed by 148 patients with glaucoma who had been admitted to a specialized ophthalmic hospital in China, between October 2021 and January 2022. The participants' responses to the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a general information survey were analyzed to determine their level of participation in shared decision-making and influencing factors. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors that influence shared decision-making at the time of clinical practice.

Results

The mean score of SDM-Q-9 was 71.73±21.27 (n=140). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that patients with negative attitudes towards participation in decision-making (P=0.023) and those who had rural insurance (P=0.017) had significantly lower SDM-Q-9 scores than those with positive attitudes and those with medical insurance. Patients who were more satisfied with their medical service had higher SDM-Q-9 scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with glaucoma presented a high level of shared decision-making. Patients' attitudes towards participating in decision-making, the payment method of medical expenses, and the level of satisfaction with medical services are factors that influence their level of participation in shared decision-making.

Research Opportunities in Stroke Prevention for Atrial Fibrillation: A Report From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the strongest risk factors for ischemic stroke, which is a leading cause of disability and death. Given the aging population, increasing prevalence of AF risk factors, and improved survival in those with cardiovascular disease, the number of individuals affected by AF will continue increasing over time. While multiple proven stroke prevention therapies exist, important questions remain about the optimal approach to stroke prevention at the population and individual patient levels. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop focused on identifying key research opportunities related to stroke prevention in AF. The workshop reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified targeted research opportunities to advance stroke prevention in AF in the following areas: (1) improving risk stratification tools for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage; (2) addressing challenges with oral anticoagulants; and (3) delineating the optimal roles of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and surgical left atrial appendage closure/excision. This report aims to promote innovative, impactful research that will lead to more personalized, effective use of stroke prevention strategies in people with AF.

Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate an Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Prevention Shared Decision-Making Pathway

Background Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and disability in atrial fibrillation (AF) but is underused. We evaluated the effects of a novel patient-clinician shared decision-making (SDM) tool in reducing oral anticoagulation patient's decisional conflict as compared with usual care. Methods and Results We designed and evaluated a new digital decision aid in a multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, ENHANCE-AF (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention). The digital AF shared decision-making toolkit was developed using patient-centered design with clear health communication principles (eg, meaningful images, limited text). Available in English and Spanish, the toolkit included the following: (1) a brief animated video; (2) interactive questions with answers; (3) a quiz to check on understanding; (4) a worksheet to be used by the patient during the encounter; and (5) an online guide for clinicians. The study population included English or Spanish speakers with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc stroke score ≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either usual care or the shared decision-making toolkit. The primary end point was the validated 16-item Decision Conflict Scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included Decision Conflict Scale at 6 months and the 10-item Decision Regret Scale at 1 and 6 months as well as a weighted average of Mann-Whitney U-statistics for both the Decision Conflict Scale and the Decision Regret Scale. A total of 1001 participants were enrolled and followed at 5 different sites in the United States between December 18, 2019, and August 17, 2022. The mean patient age was 69±10 years (40% women, 16.9% Black, 4.5% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian), and 50% of participants had CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥3 (men) or ≥4 (women). The primary end point at 1 month showed a clinically meaningful reduction in decisional conflict: a 7-point difference in median scores between the 2 arms (16.4 versus 9.4; Mann-Whitney U-statistics=0.550; P=0.007). For the secondary end point of 1-month Decision Regret Scale, the difference in median scores between arms was 5 points in the direction of less decisional regret (P=0.078). The treatment effects lessened over time: at 6 months the difference in medians was 4.7 points for Decision Conflict Scale (P=0.060) and 0 points for Decision Regret Scale (P=0.35). Conclusions Implementation of a novel shared decision-making toolkit (afibguide.com; afibguide.com/clinician) achieved significantly lower decisional conflict compared with usual care in patients with AF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04096781.

Design and development of a digital shared decision-making tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach in which patients and clinicians act as partners in making medical decisions. Patients receive the information needed to decide and are encouraged to balance risks, benefits, and preferences. Informative materials are vital to SDM. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and responsible for 10% of ischemic strokes, however 1/3 of patients are not on appropriate anticoagulation. Decision sharing may facilitate treatment acceptance, improving outcomes.

Aims

To develop a framework of the components needed to create novel SDM tools and to provide practical examples through a case-study of stroke prevention in AF.

Methods

We analyze the design values of a web-based SDM tool created to better inform AF patients about anticoagulation. The tool was developed in partnership with patient advocates, multi-disciplinary investigators, and private design firms. It was refined through iterative, recursive testing in patients with AF. Its effectiveness is being evaluated in a multisite clinical trial led by Stanford University and sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Findings

The main components considered when creating the Stanford AFib tool included: design and software; content identification; information delivery; inclusive communication, user engagement; patient feedback; clinician experience; and anticipation of implementation and dissemination. We also highlight the ethical principles underlying SDM; matters of diversity and inclusion, linguistic variety, accessibility, and health literacy. The Stanford AFib Guide patient tool is available at: https://afibguide.com and the clinician tool at https://afibguide.com/clinician.

Conclusion

Attention to a range of vital development and design factors can facilitate tool adoption and information acquisition by diverse cultural, educational, and socioeconomic subpopulations. With thoughtful design, digital tools may decrease decision regret and improve treatment outcomes across many decision-making situations in healthcare.

Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23).

CONCLUSION

Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Transforming Atrial Fibrillation Research to Integrate Social Determinants of Health: A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop Report

Importance

Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia's often paroxysmal nature and individuals' disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF.

Observations

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF.

Conclusions and Relevance

Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

BARRIERS TO GUIDELINE-DIRECTED ANTICOAGULATION IN PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION NEW APPROACHES TO AN OLD PROBLEM

Optimising guideline-directed anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation remains a perennial problem despite strong evidence for improved health outcomes with use of guideline-directed anticoagulation. Efforts to improve uptake have been hampered by barriers found at the level of the physician, patient, disease and choices of therapy. Clinician judgement is often clouded by factors such as therapeutic inertia, aversion to bleeding risk and implicit bias. For patients, negative pre-conceptions of therapy, impact of therapy on day-to-day life and the nocebo effect pose significant barriers. Both groups are impacted by poor education. Utility of a single pronged approach directed towards clinicians or patients have demonstrated variable success, with the highest impact appreciated in studies employing shared decision models. Further, there is emerging evidence for use of integrated models of care, which have shown improved efficacy in improving patient outcomes, as well as use of digital platforms such as mobile app-based interventions, which can be of aid to the clinician in improving patient adherence to anticoagulation with translated improved outcomes in clinical trials. Our narrative review article aims to investigate the physician and health system, patient, as well as drug therapy and disease barriers to uptake of guideline-directed anticoagulation in treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Designing for patient decision-making: Design challenges generated by patients with atrial fibrillation during evaluation of a decision aid prototype

Shared decision-making (SDM) empowers patients and care teams to determine the best treatment plan in alignment with the patient's preferences and goals. Decision aids are proven tools to support high quality SDM. Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, struggle to identify optimal rhythm and symptom management strategies and could benefit from a decision aid. In this Brief Research Report, we describe the development and preliminary evaluation of an interactive decision-making aid for patients with AF. We employed an iterative, user-centered design method to develop prototypes of the decision aid. Here, we describe multiple iterations of the decision aid, informed by the literature, expert feedback, and mixed-methods design sessions with AF patients. Results highlight unique design requirements for this population, but overall indicate that an interactive decision aid with visualizations has the potential to assist patients in making AF treatment decisions. Future work can build upon these design requirements to create and evaluate a decision aid for AF rhythm and symptom management.

Patient-centered care in geriatric cardiology

Geriatric cardiology involves providing cardiovascular care to older adults in relation to aging. Although cardiovascular diseases are the most common diseases faced by older adults, they often co-occur with numerous aging-related challenges, such as multimorbidity, frailty, polypharmacy, falls, functional and cognitive impairment, which present challenges to implementing standard disease-based treatment strategies. Faced with these complexities, patient-centered care in geriatric cardiology strives to direct all management toward the achievement of an individual's prioritized health and life goals by employing shared decision-making to align treatment with goals, utilizing stated goals to navigate situations of treatment uncertainty, and pro-actively mitigating aging-related risks. This fundamental change in cardiovascular medicine from disease-centered management to patient-centered goal-directed care is necessary to facilitate wellness, independence, and favorable quality of life outcomes in the older adult population.

Development of Complementary Encounter and Patient Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making about Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Introduction

Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before.

Design

Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews.

Results

User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA.

Limitations

These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology.

Conclusions

Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them.

Highlights

First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately.User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids.Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.

Shared decision making in cardiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) in cardiology with particular focus on patient-centred outcomes such as decisional conflict.

METHODS

We searched Embase (OVID), the Cochrane library, PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases from inception to January 2021 for randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of interventions to increase SDM in cardiology. The primary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional anxiety, decisional satisfaction or decisional regret; a secondary outcome was knowledge gained by the patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies which reported on at least one outcome measure were identified, including a total of 4419 patients. Interventions to increase SDM had a significant effect on reducing decisional conflict (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.211, 95% CI -0.316 to -0.107) and increasing patient knowledge (SMD 0.476, 95% CI 0.351 to 0.600) compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to increase SDM are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge in the field of cardiology. Such interventions are helpful in supporting patient-centred healthcare and should be implemented in wider cardiology practice.

Encounter-based randomization did not result in contamination in a shared decision-making trial: a secondary analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We assessed contamination at three levels: (1) tool contamination (whether the tool was physically present in the usual care encounter), (2) functional contamination (whether components of the SDM tool were recreated in the usual care encounters without directly accessing the tool), and (3) learned contamination (whether clinicians "got better at SDM" in the usual care encounters as assessed by the OPTION-12 score). For functional and learned contamination, the interaction with the number of exposures to the tool was assessed.

RESULTS

We recorded and analyzed 830 of 922 randomized encounters. Of the 411 recorded encounters randomized to usual care, the SDM tool was used in nine (2.2%) encounters. Clinicians discussed at least one patient-important issue in 377 usual care encounters (92%) and the risk of stroke in 214 encounters (52%). We found no significant interaction between number of times the SDM tool was used and subsequent functional or learned contamination.

CONCLUSION

Despite randomly assigning clinicians to use an SDM tool in some and not other encounters, we found no evidence of contamination in usual care encounters.

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making

Objective

Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians.

Conclusion

Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes.

Innovation

A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Shared Decision-Making for Drug-Drug Interactions: Formative Evaluation of an Anticoagulant Drug Interaction

Background

Warnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding.

Methods

A randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient’s individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs.

Results

Twelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient’s perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI.

Conclusions

Overall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs.

Digging Deeper: Understanding Trajectories and Experiences of Shared Decision-Making for Primary Prevention ICD Implantation

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making using a decision aid is required for patients undergoing implantation of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). It is unknown how much this process has impacted patients' experiences or choices. Effective shared decision-making requires an understanding of how patients make ICD decisions. A qualitative key informant study was chosen to capture the breadth of patients' experiences making ICD decisions in the context of required shared decision-making.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 patients referred to electrophysiology clinics for the consideration of primary prevention ICD implantation. Purposeful sampling from a prior survey study evaluating mandated shared decision-making was based on patient characteristics and responses to the initial survey questions. Qualitative descriptive analysis of the interviews was performed using a multilevel coding strategy. Patients' paths to an ICD decision often involved multiple visits with multiple clinicians. However, the decision aid was almost exclusively provided to the patient during electrophysiology clinic visits. Some patients used the numeric data in the decision aid to make an ICD decision based on the risk-benefit profile; others made decisions based on other data or based on trust in clinicians' recommendations. Patients highlighted information related to living with the device as particularly important in helping them to make their ICD decisions. Some patients struggled with the emotional aspects of making an ICD decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' ICD decision-making paths poses a challenge to episodic shared decision-making and may make tools such as decision aids perfunctory if used solely during the electrophysiology visit. Understanding patients' ICD decision-making paths, especially in the context of encounters with primary cardiologists, can inform the implementation strategies of shared decision-making help to enhance its impact. Components of decision aids focusing on the experience of living with an ICD rather than probabilistic data may also be more impactful, although the nature of their impact will differ.

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial

Background

Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation.

Analysis

We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites.

Results

Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield.

Conclusions

Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08399-z.

Evaluation of Functional Recovery Following Thrombectomy in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion and Prestroke Disability

IMPORTANCE

It is uncertain whether thrombectomy is associated with benefits in patients with prestroke disability.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of thrombectomy for patients with large vessel occlusion and prestroke disability.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients with large vessel occlusion stroke and prestroke disability (modified Rankin Scale score, 3 or 4) admitted to a single tertiary care center between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2019 (controls: 2006-2015; thrombectomy: 2015-2019). Follow-up was conducted at 90 days. Data analysis was performed from November 1 to December 31, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Use of thrombectomy vs no thrombectomy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was functional recovery at 90 days defined as clinical recovery to the functional status before stroke onset. Secondary outcomes included functional dependency, mortality, early neurologic improvement, and recanalization.

RESULTS

Among 205 patients (149 women [72.7%]; median age, 82 years [IQR, 75-87 years]), 102 individuals (49.8%) received thrombectomy and 103 (50.2%) were controls. Thrombectomy was significantly associated with functional recovery (thrombectomy, 20 [19.6%]; controls, 8 [7.8%]; adjusted difference, 9.4%; 95% CI, 2.2% to 16.7%; P = .005). Secondary outcomes showed differences in mortality, early neurologic improvement, and recanalization in favor of thrombectomy treatment. The rate of functional dependency did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (adjusted difference, 8.9%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 20.2%; P = .13). The rate of functional recovery after thrombectomy was 44.0% for patients with early neurologic improvement, 29.4% for patients with small infarct volume (<50 mL), and 7.0% for patients with neither of these parameters.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Findings of this study suggest that selected patients with prestroke disability may benefit from thrombectomy. However, the thrombectomy-associated increase in functional recovery was small. Therefore, routine use of thrombectomy may not be beneficial among patients with a large ischemic core and infarct volumes less than 50 mL may be necessary to obtain functional recovery. Patients with higher chances of functional recovery are also at an increased risk of survival with substantial disability, indicating potential harms from the intervention; further studies are needed.

Development of a patient decision aid for discharge planning of hospitalized patients with stroke

Background

Patient involvement in discharge planning of patients with stroke can be accomplished by providing personalized outcome information and promoting shared decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop a patient decision aid (PtDA) for discharge planning of hospitalized patients with stroke.

Methods

A convergent mixed methods design was used, starting with needs assessments among patients with stroke and health care professionals (HCPs). Results of these assessments were used to develop the PtDA with integrated outcome information in several co-creation sessions. Subsequently, acceptability and usability were tested to optimize the PtDA. Development was guided by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria.

Results

In total, 74 patients and 111 HCPs participated in this study. A three-component PtDA was developed, consisting of:

1) a printed consultation sheet to introduce the options for discharge destinations, containing information that can be specified for each individual patient;

2) an online information and deliberation tool to support patient education and clarification of patient values, containing an integrated “patients-like-me” model with outcome information about discharge destinations;

3) a summary sheet to support actual decision-making during consultation, containing the patient’s values and preferences concerning discharge planning.

In the acceptability test, all qualifying and certifying IPDAS criteria were fulfilled. The usability test showed that patients and HCPs highly appreciated the PtDA with integrated outcome information.

Conclusions

The developed PtDA was found acceptable and usable by patients and HCPs and is currently under investigation in a clinical trial to determine its effectiveness.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation.

METHODS

In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad.

RESULTS

Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them.

CONCLUSION

Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

Kidney transplantation or dialysis in older adults-an interview study on the decision-making process

BACKGROUND

In older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the choice between kidney transplantation (KT) and dialysis may be more complex than in younger patients because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities and frailty. This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process by exploring the expectations, experiences and health outcome priorities of all stakeholders.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with patients ≥65 years with ESKD (eGFR <15 ml/min/1.73m2, KT recipient or treated with dialysis), patients' relatives and healthcare professionals (nephrologists, nurses and medical social workers). Interviews were conducted until data saturation and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

We performed 36 interviews (patients n = 18, relatives n = 5, healthcare professionals n = 13). Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Older patients' health outcome priorities were mostly related to quality of life (QOL). Individual older patients showed marked differences in the preferred level of engagement during the decision-making process (varying from 'wants to be in the lead' to 'follows the nephrologist') and in informational needs (varying from evidence-based to experience-based). On the contrary, healthcare professionals were quite unanimous on all aspects. They focused on determining eligibility for KT as start of the decision-making process, on clear and extensive information provision and on classical, medical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process could benefit from early identification of older patients' values, needs and health outcome priorities, in parallel with assessment of KT eligibility and before discussing the treatment options, and the explicit use of this information in further steps of the decision-making process.

Randomized evaluation of decision support interventions for atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the RED-AF study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) improves the likelihood that patients will receive care in a manner consistent with their priorities. To facilitate SDM, decision aids (DA) are commonly used, both to prepare a patient before their clinician visit, as well as to facilitate discussion during the visit. However, the relative efficacy of patient-focused or encounter-based DAs on SDM and patient outcomes remains largely unknown. We aim to directly estimate the comparative effectiveness of two DA's on SDM observed in encounters to discuss stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

The study aims to recruit 1200 adult patients with non-valvular AF who qualify for anticoagulation therapy, and their clinicians who manage stroke prevention strategies, in a 2x2 cluster randomized multi-center trial at six sites. Two DA's were developed as interactive, online, non-linear tools: a patient decision aid (PDA) to be used by patients before the encounter, and an encounter decision aid (EDA) to be used by clinicians with their patients during the encounter. Patients will be randomized to PDA or usual care; clinicians will be randomized to EDA or usual care.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes are quality of SDM, patient decision making, and patient knowledge. Secondary outcomes include anticoagulation choice, adherence, and clinical events.

CONCLUSION

This trial is the first randomized, head-to-head comparison of the effects of an EDA versus a PDA on SDM. Our results will help to inform future SDM interventions to improve patients' AF outcomes and experiences with stroke prevention strategies.

The ENHANCE-AF clinical trial to evaluate an atrial fibrillation shared decision-making pathway: Rationale and study design

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) may result in treatment plans that best reflect the goals and wishes of patients, increasing patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. There is a knowledge gap to support the use of decision aids in SDM for anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We describe the development and testing of a new decision aid, including a multicenter, randomized, controlled, 2-arm, open-label ENHANCE-AF clinical trial (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention) to evaluate its effectiveness in 1,200 participants.

METHODS

Participants will be randomized to either usual care or to a SDM pathway incorporating a digital tool designed to simplify the complex concepts surrounding AF in conjunction with a clinician tool and a non-clinician navigator to guide the participants through each step of the tool. The participant-determined primary outcome for this study is the Decisional Conflict Scale, measured at 1 month after the index visit during which a decision was made regarding anticoagulation use. Secondary outcomes at both 1 and 6 months will include other decision making related scales as well as participant and clinician satisfaction, oral anticoagulation adherence, and a composite rate of major bleeding, death, stroke, or transient ischemic attack. The study will be conducted at four sites selected for their ability to enroll participants of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds, health literacy, and language skills. Participants will be followed in the study for 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the ENHANCE-AF trial will determine whether a decision aid facilitates high quality shared decision making in anticoagulation discussions for stroke reduction in AF. An improved shared decision-making experience may allow patients to make decisions better aligned with their personal values and preferences, while improving overall AF care.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients.

Objective

To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers.

Interventions

Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making.

Results

A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Patient values and preferences in pulmonary embolism testing in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centered care is concordant with patient values and preferences. There is a lack of research on patient values and preferences for pulmonary embolism (PE) testing in the emergency department (ED), and a poor physician understanding of patient-specific goals. Our aim was to map patient-specific values, preferences, and expectations regarding PE testing in the ED.

METHOD

This qualitative study used constructivist grounded theory to identify patient values and expectations around PE testing in the ED. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ED patients who were being tested for PE in two EDs. Patients who were waiting for PE imaging or D-dimer results were approached and consented to take part in a 30-minute audio-recorded interview. Each interview was transcribed verbatim and analyzed using constant comparative coding. The interview script was modified to maximize information on emerging themes. Major themes and subthemes were derived, each representing an opportunity, barrier, or value to address with patient-centered PE testing.

RESULTS

From 30 patient interviews, we mapped four major themes: patient satisfaction comes from addressing the patient's primary concern (for example, their pain); patients expect individualized care; patients prefer imaging over clinical examination for PE testing; and patients expect 100% confidence from their emergency physician when given a diagnosis. Subthemes included symptomatic relief, finding a diagnosis, receiving tests, rapid progression through their care, perception of highly accurate CT scans, willingness to seek a second opinion, direct physician communication, and expectation of case-specific testing with cognitive reassurance.

CONCLUSION

Addressing each of these four themes by realigning ED processes could provide patient-centered PE testing.

Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision-making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Assessment of Patients' Views on Drug Benefits and Risks: An Interview Study with Cardiovascular Patients

Better and balanced information strategies supporting cardiovascular patients' adherence are required. Cardiovascular drugs have outstanding morbidity and mortality benefits. This can be counteracted by patients' perceptions of risks. Drug information should help the patient but not fuel unwarranted fears. We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients admitted to a cardiology ward. We evaluated (i) the patients' general benefit-risk estimation of their pharmacotherapy; (ii) views on benefits; (iii) views on risks; and (iv) information sources. Additionally, we assessed aspects of anxiety and depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). (i) 67 patients (66%) rated expected drug benefits higher than potential risks. (ii) 72% of benefits motivated the patients to take their medication as prescribed. Patients more frequently mentioned surrogate markers as benefits than clinical benefits (p < 0.001). (iii) 56% of risks mentioned were perceived as bothersome and 35% as concerning. Risks were more often perceived as bothersome and concerning by patients with higher PHQ-4 scores (p=0.016). (iv) Physicians were the most frequent information source of benefits (92% of patients) and risks (45%), and pharmacy staff for 27% and 14%, respectively. Laymen or media served as sources of information on benefits in 39%, for risks in 40%, and package leaflets in 26% and 36%. 42% of the patients would like to receive more information on benefits versus 27% on risks. Our results suggest that knowledge of benefits motivates patients to take their drugs as prescribed. There is already good information on surrogate markers for process control with active patient involvement. However, a lack of knowledge still exists in relation to clinical benefits. Regarding risks, it has been shown that patients with higher PHQ-4 scores are more likely to be bothered or concerned. Both emphases on clinical benefits and individualization depending on PHQ-4 scores may be valuable resources for patient counseling to support adherence.

Biomarkers of Metabolic Syndrome: Role in Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology Of Atrial Fibrillation

The relationship between Metabolic syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation is confirmed by many studies. The components of Metabolic syndrome cause remodeling of the atrial. Metabolic syndrome and metabolic derangements of the syndrome could be the cause of the pathogenesis of AF. This review article discusses the major biomarkers of Metabolic syndrome and their role in the pathogenesis of AF. The biomarkers are adiponectin, leptin, Leptin/ Adiponectin ratio, TNF-α, Interleukin-6, Interleukin-10, PTX3, ghrelin, uric acid, and OxLDL.The elevated plasma levels of adiponectin were linked to the presence of persistent AF. Leptin signaling contributes to angiotensin-II evoked AF and atrial fibrosis. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha involvement has been shown in the pathogenesis of chronic AF. Similarly, Valvular AF patients showed high levels of TNF-α. Increased left atrial size was associated with the interleukin-6 because it is a well-known risk factor for AF. Interleukin-10 as well as TNF-α were linked to AF recurrence after catheter ablation. PTX3 could be superior to other inflammatory markers that were reported to be elevated in AF. The serum ghrelin concentration in AF patients was reduced and significantly increased after treatment. Elevated levels of uric acid could be related to the burden of AF. Increased OxLDL was found in AF as compared to sinus rhythm control.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Usability and Perceived Usefulness of the AFib 2gether Mobile App in a Clinical Setting: Single-Arm Intervention Study

Background

Although the American Heart Association and other professional societies have recommended shared decision-making as a way for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter to make informed decisions about using anticoagulation (AC), the best method for facilitating shared decision-making remains uncertain.

Objective

The aim of this study is to assess the AFib 2gether mobile app for usability, perceived usefulness, and the extent and nature of shared decision-making that occurred for clinical encounters between patients with AF and their cardiology providers in which the app was used.

Methods

We identified patients visiting a cardiology provider between October 2019 and May 2020. We measured usability from patients and providers using the Mobile App Rating Scale. From the 8 items of the Mobile App Rating Scale, we reported the average score (out of 5) for domains of functionality, esthetics, and overall quality. We administered a 3-item questionnaire to patients relating to their perceived usefulness of the app and a separate 3-item questionnaire to providers to measure their perceived usefulness of the app. We performed a chart review to track the occurrence of AC within 6 months of the index visit. We also audio recorded a subset of the encounters to identify evidence of shared decision-making.

Results

We facilitated shared decision-making visits for 37 patients visiting 13 providers. In terms of usability, patients’ average ratings of functionality, esthetics, and overall quality were 4.51 (SD 0.61), 4.26 (SD 0.51), and 4.24 (SD 0.89), respectively. In terms of usefulness, 41% (15/37) of patients agreed that the app improved their knowledge regarding AC, and 62% (23/37) agreed that the app helped clarify to their provider their preferences regarding AC. Among providers, 79% (27/34) agreed that the app helped clarify their patients’ preferences, 82% (28/34) agreed that the app saved them time, and 59% (20/34) agreed that the app helped their patients make decisions about AC. In addition, 32% (12/37) of patients started AC after their shared decision-making visits. We audio recorded 25 encounters. Of these, 84% (21/25) included the mention of AC for AF, 44% (11/25) included the discussion of multiple options for AC, 72% (18/25) included a provider recommendation for AC, and 48% (12/25) included the evidence of patient involvement in the discussion.

Conclusions

Patients and providers rated the app with high usability and perceived usefulness. Moreover, one-third of the patients began AC, and approximately 50% (12/25) of the encounters showed evidence of patient involvement in decision-making. In the future, we plan to study the effect of the app on a larger sample and with a controlled study design.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118270; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04118270

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-21986

The Need for Brevity During Shared Decision Making (SDM) for Cancer Screening: Veterans' Perspectives on an "Everyday SDM" Compromise

Introduction. Detailed or “full” shared decision making (SDM) about cancer screening is difficult in the primary care setting. Time spent discussing cancer screening is time not spent on other important issues. Given time constraints, brief SDM that is incomplete but addresses key elements may be feasible and acceptable. However, little is known about how patients feel about abbreviated SDM. This study assessed patient perspectives on a compromise solution (“everyday SDM”): 1) primary care provided makes a tailored recommendation, 2) briefly presents qualitative information on key tradeoffs, and 3) conveys full support for decisional autonomy and desires for more information. Methods. We recruited a stratified random sample of Veterans from an academic Veterans Affairs medical center who were eligible for lung cancer screening, oversampling women and minority patients, to attend a 6-hour deliberative focus group. Experts informed participants about cancer screening, factors that influence screening benefits, and the role of patient preferences. Then, facilitator-led small groups elicited patient questions and informed opinions about the everyday SDM proposal, its acceptability, and their recommendations for improvement. Results. Thirty-six Veterans with a heavy smoking history participated (50% male, 83% white). There was a strong consensus that everyday SDM was acceptable if patients were the final deciders and could get more information on request. Participants broadly recommended that clinicians only mention downsides directly related to screening and avoid discussion of potential downstream harms (such as biopsies). Discussion. Although further testing in more diverse populations and different conditions is needed, these patients found the everyday SDM approach to be acceptable for routine lung cancer screening discussions, despite its use of an explicit recommendation and presentation of only qualitative information.

Feasibility and usability of a mobile health tool on anticoagulation management for patients with atrial fibrillation: a pilot study

PURPOSE

Appropriate prescription of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and good patient adherence are essential to ensure optimal anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to develop a mobile health tool to aid both clinicians and patients with AF in anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

In this study, a novel anticoagulation management model integrating decision support and patient follow-up, the I-Anticoagulation, was developed based on a WeChat Mini Program. With this tool, the risks of stroke and bleeding in AF patients can automatically be calculated according to their characteristics. Anticoagulation regimens were recommended based on a trade-off analysis that balances stroke and bleeding risks according to recent clinical guidelines. A shared decision can be made with full communication between medical professionals and patients. Moreover, follow-up was also conducted using I-Anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 120 AF patients receiving anticoagulants (40 received warfarin and 80 received non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants [NOACs]) were included in the pilot study. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 2.5% and 1.3%, and the rates of bleeding events were 22.5% and 13.8% in the warfarin and NOAC groups, respectively. Generally, self-reported adherence was high, and the satisfaction with anticoagulation was good in all patients with AF.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the anticoagulation management model developed in this study could be involved in the full process of anticoagulation therapy in AF patients to improve rationality, adherence, and satisfaction in both medical professionals and patients. However, the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the I-Anticoagulant-based anticoagulation management model need to be further assessed through well-designed random clinical trials.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Personalized, Electronic Health Record-Integrated Decision Aid for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Small Cluster Randomized Trial and Qualitative Analysis of Efficacy and Acceptability

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in cardiology is increasingly recommended to improve patient-centeredness of care. Decision aids can improve patient knowledge and decisional quality but are infrequently used in real-world practice. This mixed-methods study tests the efficacy and acceptability of a decision aid integrated into the electronic health record (Integrated Decision Aid [IDeA]) and delivered by clinicians for patients with atrial fibrillation considering options to reduce stroke risk. We aimed to determine whether the IDeA improves patient knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and is seen as acceptable by clinicians and patients.

METHODS

A small cluster randomized trial included 6 cardiovascular clinicians and 66 patients randomized either to the IDeA (HealthDecision) or usual care (clinician discretion) during a clinical encounter when stroke prevention treatment options were discussed. The primary outcome was patient knowledge of personalized stroke risk. Exploratory outcomes included decisional conflict, values concordance, trust, the presence of a shared decision-making process, and patient knowledge related to time spent using the IDeA. Additionally, we conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients who used the IDeA were conducted to assess acceptability and predictions of future use.

RESULTS

The IDeA significantly increased patients' knowledge of their stroke risk (odds ratio, 3.88 [95% CI, 1.39-10.78]; P<0.01]). Patients had less uncertainty about their final decision (P=0.04). There were no significant differences in values concordance, trust in clinician or shared decision-making. Despite training, each clinician used the IDeA differently. Qualitative analysis revealed patients prefer using the IDeA earlier in their diagnosis. Clinicians were satisfied with the IDeA, yet varied in the contexts in which they planned to use it in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an Integrated Decision Aid, or IDeA, increases patient knowledge and lessens uncertainty for decision-making around stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qualitative data provide insight into potential implementation strategies in real-world practice.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2020: arrhythmias

of the progress in arrhythmias in 2020. RACE4 and ALL-IN indicated that integrated nurse-led care improves outcomes in AF patients.3,4 The same was reported for early rhythm control therapy15 and cryoablation as initial AF treatment.25,26 Subcutaneous ICD was non-inferior to classical transvenous ICD therapy in PRAETORIAN.54 One mechanistic study showed that autoantibodies against misexpressed actin, keratin, and connexin-43 proteins create a blood-borne biomarker profile enhancing diagnosis of Brugada syndrome.50 Another mechanistic study indicated that transseptal LV pacing yields similar improvement in contractility as His bundle pacing whilst being more easy to execute.44 In PRE-DETERMINE a simple-to-use ECG risk score improved risk prediction in patients with ischemic heart disease possibly enhancing appropriate ICD therapy in high risk patients.58.

Shared Decision Making Tools for People Facing Stroke Prevention Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact.

METHODS

We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM.

RESULTS

We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.