A patient decision aid to support shared decision-making on anti-thrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation: randomised controlled trial

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.

Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants' perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS.

METHODS

Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program.

INTERVENTION

We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention.

ANALYSIS

For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses.

RESULTS

Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

The Influence of Patient Preference on Surgeons' Treatment Recommendations in the Management of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether surgeon variation in management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) is driven by differences in risk perception and quantify surgeons' risk threshold for changing their recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Surgeons vary widely in management of IPMN.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of members of the Americas HepatoPancreatoBiliary Association, presented participants with 2 detailed clinical vignettes and asked them to choose between surgical resection and surveillance. We also asked them to judge the likelihood that the IPMN harbors cancer and that the patient would have a serious complication if surgery was performed. Finally, we asked surgeons to rate the level of cancer risk at which they would change their treatment recommendation. We examined the association between surgeons' treatment recommendations and their risk perception and risk threshold.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty surgeons participated in the study. Surgeons varied in their recommendations for surgery [19% for vignette 1 (V1) and 12% for V2] and in their perception of the cancer risk (interquartile range: 2%-10% for V1 and V2) and risk of surgical complications (V1 interquartile range: 10%-20%, V2 20%-30%). After adjusting for surgeon characteristics, surgeons who were above the median in cancer risk perception were 22 percentage points (27% vs. 5%) more likely to recommend resection than those who were below the median (95% CI: 11.34%; P <0.001). The median risk threshold at which surgeons would change their recommendation was 15% (V1 and V2). Surgeons who recommended surgery had a lower risk threshold for changing their recommendation than those who recommended surveillance (V1: 10.0 vs. 15.0, P =0.06; V2: 7.0 vs. 15.0, P =0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment that patients receive for IPMNs depends greatly on how their surgeons perceive the risk of cancer in the lesion. Efforts to improve cancer risk prediction for IPMNs may lead to decreased variations in care.

An opponent model for agent-based shared decision-making via a genetic algorithm

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) has received a great deal of attention as an effective way to achieve patient-centered medical care. SDM aims to bring doctors and patients together to develop treatment plans through negotiation. However, time pressure and subjective factors such as medical illiteracy and inadequate communication skills prevent doctors and patients from accurately expressing and obtaining their opponent's preferences. This problem leads to SDM being in an incomplete information environment, which significantly reduces the efficiency of the negotiation and even leads to failure.

Methods

In this study, we integrated a negotiation strategy that predicts opponent preference using a genetic algorithm with an SDM auto-negotiation model constructed based on fuzzy constraints, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of SDM by addressing the problems posed by incomplete information environments and rapidly generating treatment plans with high mutual satisfaction.

Results

A variety of negotiation scenarios are simulated in experiments and the proposed model is compared with other excellent negotiation models. The results indicated that the proposed model better adapts to multivariate scenarios and maintains higher mutual satisfaction.

Discussion

The agent negotiation framework supports SDM participants in accessing treatment plans that fit individual preferences, thereby increasing treatment satisfaction. Adding GA opponent preference prediction to the SDM negotiation framework can effectively improve negotiation performance in incomplete information environments.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing Patient and Provider Experiences with Atrial Fibrillation to Highlight Gaps and Opportunities for Improving Care

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common abnormal heart rhythm, places a considerable burden on patients, providers, and the US healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this qualitative study was to compare patients' and providers' interpretations and responses to AF symptoms and to identify where treatment can be improved to better address patient needs and well-being.

DESIGN

Qualitative design using focus groups with patients (3 groups) and providers (3 groups).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with physician-confirmed AF (n=29) and cardiologists, primary care physicians, and cardiac nurses (n=24).

APPROACH

Focus groups elicited patient and provider perspectives regarding the symptom experience of AF, treatment goals, and gaps in care. Patient and provider transcripts were analyzed separately, using a thematic content analysis approach, and then compared.

KEY RESULTS

While patients and providers described similar AF symptoms, patients' illness experiences included a wider range of symptoms that elicited anxiety and impacted quality of life (QOL) across many biopsychosocial domains. Patients and providers prioritized different treatment goals. Providers tended to focus on controlling symptoms congruent with objective findings, minimizing stroke risk, and restoring sinus rhythm. Patients focused on improving QOL by reducing medication use or procedures. Both patients and providers struggled with patients' cardiac-related anxiety. Patients expressed an unmet need for education and support.

CONCLUSION

Patients with AF experience a range of symptoms and QOL issues. While guidelines recommend shared-decision making, discordance between patient and provider perspectives on the importance, priority, and impact of patients' perceived AF symptoms and consequent cardiac anxiety may result in differing treatment priorities. Starting from a perspective that contextualizes AF in the broader context of patients' lives, prioritizes QOL, and addresses symptom-specific anxiety as a prime concern may better address patients' unmet needs.

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.

Mobile health technology in atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Mobile health (mHealth) solutions in atrial fibrillation (AF) are becoming widespread, thanks to everyday life devices such as smartphones. Their use is validated both in monitoring and in screening scenarios. In the published literature, the diagnostic accuracy of mHealth solutions wide differs, and their current clinical use is not well established in principal guidelines.

AREAS COVERED

mHealth solutions have progressively built an AF-detection chain to guide patients from the device's alert signal to the health care practitioners' (HCPs) attention. This review aims to critically evaluate the latest evidence regarding mHealth devices and the future possible patient's uses in everyday life.

EXPERT OPINION

The patients are the first to be informed of the rhythm anomaly, leading to the urgency of increasing the patients' AF self-management. Furthermore, HCPs need to update themselves about mHealth devices use in clinical practice. Nevertheless, these are promising instruments in specific populations, such as post-stroke patients, to promote an early arrhythmia diagnosis in the post-ablation/cardioversion period, allowing checks on the efficacy of the treatment or intervention.

Risk communication in acute stroke patients - from qualitative data to a pilot randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The probability of recurring strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation is high. Within 1.8 years, 6.6 % of the patients suffered a new stroke. While effective secondary prevention options exist, low adherence challenges effective medical treatment. The aim of our study was to examine the risk understanding of acute stroke patients and to find the best way to communicate risk reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Risk communication had three formats: a text, a pictogram, and a cube diagram. All three were developed on the basis of the criteria of evidence-based patient information. Patients who were admitted to the stroke unit and diagnosed with acute stroke, assessed the information material. Data on secondary prevention using acetylsalicylic acid were taken as an example, with no reference to actual patient treatment. In a first step, we interviewed a focus group to check the feasibility of the questionnaire (qualitative study). In the second step, the information material was tested in a pilot randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

Acute stroke patients (qualitative study, n=13) understood the information and were interested in numerical risk communication. The visualized representations were superior in terms of understandability of the numbers communicated (pilot randomized controlled trial, n=60, 50 % correct answers for question 1, p value of 0.502, and 55 % correct answers for question 2, p value of 0.338). Stroke-related neurologic deficits, measured with the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) on admission, revealed a significant influence on the number of correct answers to stroke risk questions, whereas the type of stroke and education did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute stroke patients were able to understand risk communication. Visualization helped them capture information on stroke risk.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

Lessons for deprescribing from a nonessential medication hold policy in US nursing homes

BACKGROUND

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large nursing home chain implemented a policy to temporarily hold potentially unnecessary medications. We describe rates of held and discontinued medications after a temporary hold policy of potentially unnecessary or nonessential medications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record (EHR) data on 3247 residents of 64 nursing homes operated by a multistate long-term care provider. Medications were documented in the electronic medication administration record. Overall medication held and discontinued incidences are reported. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling is used to determine individual probabilities for medication discontinuation within each facility.

RESULTS

In total, 3247 residents had 5297 nonessential medications held. Multivitamins were most likely to be held, followed by histamine-2 receptor antagonists, antihistamines, and statins. At the end of the hold policy, 2897 of 5297 (54%) were permanently discontinued, including probiotics (73%), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (66%), antihistamines (64%), and statins (45%). Demographics, cognitive and functional impairment were similar between residents with medications who were discontinued versus continued. For most medications, more than 50% of the variance in whether medications were discontinued was explained by facility rather than resident-level factors.

CONCLUSION

A temporary medication hold policy implemented during the CoVID-19 pandemic led to the deprescribing of a plurality of 'nonessential' medications. This type of organization-wide initiative may be an effective mechanism for altering future prescribing behaviors to reduce the use of unnecessary medications.

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.

Value of Patient-Centered Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Present the value of a person-centered approach in diabetes management and review current evidence supporting its practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early evidence from glycemic control trials in diabetes resulted in most practice guidelines adopting a glucose-centric intensive approach for management of the disease, consistently relying on HbA1c as a marker of metabolic control and success. This paradigm has been recently dispelled by new evidence that shows that intensive glycemic control does not provide a significant benefit regarding patient-important microvascular and macrovascular hard outcomes when compared to moderate glycemic targets. The goals of diabetes therapy are to reduce the risks of acute and chronic complications and increase quality of life while incurring least burden of treatment and disruption to the patient's life. A person-centered approach to diabetes management is achieved through shared decision making, integration of evidence-based care and patient´s needs, values and preferences, and minimally disruptive approaches to diabetes care and at the same time offer practical guidance to clinicians and patients on achieving this type of care.

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.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

More work needed on decision analysis for shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To explore and characterize published evidence on the ways decision analysis has been used to inform shared decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For this scoping review, we searched five bibliographic databases (from inception until February 2021), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, a thesis database and websites of relevant interest groups. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the application of decision analysis in a shared decision-making encounter. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted study information using a data extraction form developed by the research team and assessed risk of bias for all studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. Data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We identified 27 studies that varied greatly with regard to their patient population, design, content and delivery. A range of outcomes were evaluated to explore the effectiveness and acceptability of decision analytic interventions, with little information about the implementation process. Most studies found that decision analysis was broadly beneficial.

CONCLUSION

Despite the compelling rationale on the potential for decision analysis to support shared decision-making, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these interventions' effectiveness, while qualitative studies should seek to understand their potential implementation.

Decision aids for shared decision-making and appropriate anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Underuse of oral anticoagulants (OACs) is commonly observed among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), which hinders stroke prevention in AF. Shared decision-making (SDM) can help enhance adherence by minimizing patients' misunderstanding of treatment and aligning care with their preferences. Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to facilitate the SDM process. This study aimed to: (i) evaluate the effects of DAs on AF patients' knowledge, decisional conflict, OAC uptake, and adherence and on the incidence of stroke and bleeding; and (ii) explore characterizing factors associated with enhanced DA effectiveness.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five databases were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 when data were available. Comparative analysis between effective and ineffective DAs was conducted to determine the DA designs associated with better effects. Ten studies were included. Pooling results indicated that DAs reduce decisional conflict related to warfarin use [mean difference = -0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.18 to -0.02; P = 0.01] and enhance OAC uptake [risk ratio: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05; P = 0.004]. The effects of DAs on adherence and incidence of stroke and bleeding were unclear. Comparative analysis revealed that DAs with key elements of SDM (situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, benefits and disadvantages, and patient's preference) and pre-consultation delivery are more likely to be effective in promoting SDM and OAC uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs are promising in promoting SDM and OAC uptake in patients with AF. The evidence on adherence and incidence of stroke and bleeding remains uncertain. More trials with rigorous study design and longer follow-up are necessary to obtain evidence.

Strengthening the Learning Health System in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Time to Leverage Big Data and Digital Solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The past few decades have seen significant technologic innovation for the treatment and diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases. The subsequent growing complexity of modern medicine, however, is causing fundamental challenges in our healthcare system primarily in the spheres of patient involvement, data generation, and timely clinical implementation. The Institute of Medicine advocated for a learning health system (LHS) in which knowledge generation and patient care are inherently symbiotic. The purpose of this paper is to review how the advances in technology and big data have been used to further patient care and data generation and what future steps will need to occur to develop a LHS in cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient-centered care has progressed from technologic advances yielding resources like decision aids. LHS can also incorporate patient preferences by increasing and standardizing patient-reported information collection. Additionally, data generation can be optimized using big data analytics by developing large interoperable datasets from multiple sources to allow for real-time data feedback. Developing a LHS will require innovative technologic solutions with a patient-centered lens to facilitate symbiosis in data generation and clinical practice.

Integrated Care in Atrial Fibrillation: A Road Map to the Future

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia in clinical practice with an epidemiological coupling appreciated with advancing age, cardiometabolic risk factors, and structural heart disease. This has resulted in a significant public health burden over the years, evident through increasing rates of hospitalization and AF-related clinical encounters. The resultant gap in health care outcomes is largely twinned with suboptimal rates of anticoagulation prescription and adherence, deficits in symptom identification and management, and insufficient comorbid cardiovascular risk factor investigation and modification. In view of these shortfalls in care, the establishment of integrated chronic care models serves as a road map to best clinical practice. The expansion of integrated chronic care programs, which include multidisciplinary team care, nurse-led AF clinics, and use of telemedicine, are expected to improve AF-related outcomes in the coming years. This review will delve into current gaps in AF care and the role of integrated chronic care models in bridging fragmentations in its management.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

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

IMPORTANCE

Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process.

RESULTS

The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.

METHODS

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

RESULTS

Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.

CONCLUSIONS

DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.

Interventions to support shared decision making for medication therapy in long term conditions: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

1) To examine the effectiveness of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) for medication therapy in long term conditions on patient outcomes; 2) to identify characteristics of SDM interventions that are associated with positive patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. A best evidence synthesis was performed. Intervention characteristics that are likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes were identified using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles reporting 23 studies were included. Seventeen patient outcomes were assessed using a variety of measurement instruments. There was evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on risk estimation and involvement in decision making. Evidence for no effect was found on four outcomes (e.g. medication adherence) and conflicting evidence on ten outcomes (e.g. decisional conflict). Electronically delivered SDM interventions and those comprising value clarification exercises were likely to be associated with positive patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of evidence for a positive effect of SDM interventions on the majority of patient outcomes. The mode and content of SDM interventions seem to affect patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a need for standardization of patient outcomes and measurement instruments to evaluate SDM interventions.

Measuring the Benefits of Decision Aids for Economic Evaluation

Decision aids, sometimes known as decision-support tools, are increasingly used to help patients to understand treatment options and to reach an informed decision consistent with their own values, yet methods for their economic evaluation have received limited attention. This is at odds with the increasingly rigorous methods being applied to assess the cost effectiveness of other health technologies. This paper reviews current approaches to evaluating decision aids and proposes a new method for assessing their benefits relative to other interventions in a resource-constrained health system that seeks to improve health, equity and patient satisfaction. Current evaluation frameworks are found to be unsuitable for the economic evaluation of decision aids since their objectives are broader than health maximisation. Decision aids may generate significant non-health benefits such as improved patient knowledge and satisfaction, which cannot be assessed using cost-utility analysis. A stated-preference consultation time trade-off (CTTO) is proposed in which a proportion of hypothetical physician consultation is traded for use of the decision aid. A decision aid provides information for a patient to make an informed choice and therefore may be considered to be a substitute for physician time. The CTTO can be reported in consultation minutes or converted to monetary units using the cost of physician time. These values may be used, alongside the implementation cost, for economic evaluation.

Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered approach in which clinicians and patients work together to find and choose the best course of action for each patient's particular situation. Six SDM key elements can be identified: situation diagnosis, choice awareness, option clarification, discussion of harms and benefits, deliberation of patient preferences, and making the decision. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) require that a decision aid (DA) support these key elements. Yet, the extent to which DAs support these six key SDM elements and how this relates to their impact remain unknown.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases (from inception until November 2017), reference lists of included studies, trial registries, and experts for randomized controlled trials of DAs in patients with cardiovascular, or chronic respiratory conditions or diabetes. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial, and DA characteristics, and evaluated the quality of each trial.

RESULTS

DAs most commonly clarified options (20 of 20; 100%) and discussed their harms and benefits (18 of 20; 90%; unclear in two DAs); all six elements were clearly supported in 4 DAs (20%). We found no association between the presence of these elements and SDM outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for selected chronic conditions are mostly designed to transfer information about options and their harms and benefits. The extent to which their support of SDM key elements relates to their impact on SDM outcomes could not be ascertained.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016050320 .

Patient-focused interventions to support vulnerable people using oral anticoagulants: a narrative review

The aim of this review was to identify patient-focused interventions that have been trialed to support vulnerable patient populations taking oral anticoagulants (warfarin and the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) such as older persons (65 years and over), those with limited health literacy, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. This review also aimed to report on the effects of these interventions on outcomes relevant to the use of anticoagulant therapy. Original articles published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2017 were identified using several electronic databases such as Medline, Ovid, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The following terms were used for the three-tiered search: Tier 1, elderly, aged, older adult, geriatrics; Tier 2, health literacy, literacy, low health literacy, low English proficiency, patient literacy; and Tier 3, ethnicity, ethnic, ethnic groups, CALD, culturally and linguistically diverse, NESB, non-English speaking background, race, racial groups, religion, religious groups, and minority groups. The terms for each tier were combined with the following terms: anticoagulants, anticoagulation, warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, DOACS, new oral anticoagulants, novel oral anticoagulants, patient care, patient knowledge, comprehension, patient education, patient participation, and communication. A total of 41 studies were identified. Most of the interventions identified included older persons taking warfarin who were monitored using the international normalized ratio (INR) and who received patient education. Many interventions reported a significant positive impact on patients' knowledge, reduction in the number of adverse events caused by hemorrhage, and better INR control. More research on patient-focused interventions is needed that includes patients with limited health literacy, those from CALD backgrounds, and family members and caregivers of patients taking oral anticoagulants.

The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: Systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of encounter patient decision aids (PDAs) as evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies assessing feasibility, utility and their integration into clinical workflows.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched for RCTs of encounter PDAs to enable the conduct of a meta-analysis. We used a framework analysis approach to conduct a narrative synthesis of non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs and 30 non-randomized studies. Encounter PDAs significantly increased knowledge (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI 0.30, 0.55), lowered decisional conflict (SMD= -0.33; 95% CI -0.56, -0.09), increased observational-based assessment of shared decision making (SMD = 0.94; 95% CI 0.40, 1.48) and satisfaction with the decision-making process (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.19, 2.66) without increasing visit durations (SMD= -0.06; 95% CI -0.29, 0.16). The narrative synthesis showed that encounter tools have high utility for patients and clinicians, yet important barriers to implementation exist (i.e. time constraints) at the clinical and organizational level.

CONCLUSION

Encounter PDAs have a positive impact on patient-clinician collaboration, despite facing implementation barriers.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The potential utility of encounter PDAs requires addressing the systemic and structural barriers that prevent adoption in clinical practice.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

Ready to Make A Decision: A Model of Informational Aids to Improve Informed Participation in Clinical Trial Research

Enrollment rates for cancer clinical trials remain low, affecting the generalizability of new treatments. Research shows that many patients face significant challenges in understanding basic clinical trial vocabulary and making informed decisions about participation. Informational aids (IA) are developed to address these challenges and support decision making of cancer clinical trial participation. The present study proposed and tested a structural path model to explain the efficacy of three (i.e., interactive, non-interactive, non-cancer control) IAs. The results revealed that clinical trial participation intention was associated with attitudes and social constructs (i.e., social norm, social sharing, and cues to action). Ease of use, rather than knowledge, was the primary communication feature of IA that influenced the outcome variables. The path relations linking messages features, mediators, and outcome variables were different across all three IAs. The results therefore provide theoretical and practical implications for the use and development of IAs to support clinical trial accrual.

Impact of decision aids used during clinical encounters on clinician outcomes and consultation length: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.

METHODS

We searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians' satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.

CONCLUSION

Decision aids can improve clinicians' satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians' perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Effectiveness of knowledge translation and knowledge appropriation of clinical practice guidelines for patients and communities, a systematic review

Introduction: Knowledge translation and knowledge appropriation social interventions apply knowledge to improve health services and outcomes. These interventions can be implemented routinely to improve patient adherence to clinical practice guidelines. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve patient and community adherence to clinical practice guidelines. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic review of these interventions compared with classical interventions for patients and/or communities. We searched the following electronic databases up to April 2017: Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, Central (Ovid), Web of Science, LILACS, Academic Search, and Scielo. Two independent raters qualified the relevance, risk of bias, and quality of included studies. Results: Eight studies were included. Patient adherence to recommendations was observed in two studies. There was high heterogeneity due to the variability of the population, types of guidelines, and types of measurement tools. The risk of bias was high: a 60% risk of performance bias, 50% risk of attrition bias, 25% risk of selection and reporting bias, and 15% risk of detection bias. The quality of evidence was moderate for the outcomes of adherence and mortality. The interventions that used a combination of strategies, such as with the group of health professionals, could improve some clinical outcomes in the patients (Average deviation: -3.00; 95% IC: -6.08-0.08). Conclusions: Knowledge translation interventions might have a slight positive effect on patient adherence and some short-term clinical outcomes, particularly within mixed interventions (patients and health professionals). However, future studies with less heterogeneity are necessary to confirm these results.

Shared decision-making tool for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation - A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF) remains a national challenge.

METHODS

We hypothesized that a shared decision-making interaction facilitated by an Atrial Fibrillation Shared Decision Making Tool (AFSDM) would improve patient knowledge about atrial fibrillation, and the risks and benefits of various treatment options for stroke prevention; increase satisfaction with the decision-making process; improve the therapeutic alliance between patient and the clinical care team; and increase medication adherence. Using a pre- and post-visit study design, we enrolled 76 patients and completed 2 office visits and 1-month telephone follow-up for 65 patients being seen in our Arrhythmia Clinic over the 1-year period (July 2016 through June 2017). Our primary outcome measure was change in decisional conflict between the first and second clinical visit.

RESULTS

Decisional conflict decreased from an average of 31 to 9. Mean change was 22.3 (95% CI, 25.7 - 37.1), corresponding to an effect size of 0.94 standard deviations. Satisfaction with decision increased from 4.0 to 4.5, measures of therapeutic alliance with the care team (Kim Alliance scale) increased from 100.1 to 103.1, and satisfaction with provider increased from 4.2 to 4.5 (P < .0001 for all measures). AF knowledge assessment scores increased from 8.4 to 9.1, and knowledge about personal stroke and bleeding risk increased from 1 to 1.5 (P < .0001). Finally, medication adherence improved as reflected by an increase in the Morisky Medication Adherence scale from 5.9 to 6.4 (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A shared decision-making interaction, facilitated by an AFSDM can significantly improve multiple measures of decision-making quality, leading to improved medication adherence and patient satisfaction.

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

Towards Supporting Patient Decision-making In Online Diabetes Communities

As of 2014, 29.1 million people in the US have diabetes. Patients with diabetes have evolving information needs around complex lifestyle and medical decisions. As their conditions progress, patients need to sporadically make decisions by understanding alternatives and comparing options. These moments along the decision-making process present a valuable opportunity to support their information needs. An increasing number of patients visit online diabetes communities to fulfill their information needs. To understand how patients attempt to fulfill the information needs around decision-making in online communities, we reviewed 801 posts from an online diabetes community and included 79 posts for in-depth content analysis. The findings revealed motivations for posters' inquiries related to decision-making including the changes in disease state, increased self-awareness, and conflict of information received. Medication and food were the among the most popular topics discussed as part of their decision-making inquiries. Additionally, We present insights for automatically identifying those decision-making inquiries to efficiently support information needs presented in online health communities.

Contemporary utilization of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an audit in an Australian hospital setting

BACKGROUND

To document antithrombotic utilization in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), particularly, recently approved NOACs (nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants) and warfarin; and identify factors predicting the use of NOACs versus warfarin.

METHODS

A retrospective audit was conducted in an Australian hospital. Data pertaining to inpatients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) admitted between January and December 2014 were extracted. This included patient demographics, risk factors (stroke, bleeding), social history, medical conditions, medication history, medication safety issues, medication adherence, and antithrombotic prescribed at admission and discharge.

RESULTS

Among 199 patients reviewed, 84.0% were discharged on antithrombotics. Anticoagulants (± antiplatelets) were most frequently (52.0%) prescribed (two-thirds were prescribed warfarin, the remainder NOACs), followed by antiplatelets (33.0%). Among 41 patients receiving NOACs, 59.0% were prescribed rivaroxaban, 24.0% dabigatran, and 17.0% apixaban. Among patients aged 75 years and over, antiplatelets were most frequently used (37.0%), followed by warfarin (33.0%), then NOACs (14.0%). Compared with their younger counterparts, patients aged 75 years and over were significantly less likely to receive NOACs (14.0% versus 28.0%, p = 0.01). Among the 'most eligible' patients (Congestive Cardiac Failure, Hypertension (, Age ⩾ 75 years, Age= 65-74 years, Diabetes Mellitus, Stroke/ Transient Ischaemic Attack/ Thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Sex female[CHA2DS2-VASc] score ⩾2 and no bleeding risk factors), 46.0% were not anticoagulated on discharge. Patients with anaemia (68.0% versus 86.0%, p = 0.04) or a history of bleeding (65.0% versus 87.0%, p = 0.01) were less likely to receive antithrombotics compared with those without these risk factors. Warfarin therapy was less frequently prescribed among patients with cognitive impairment compared with patients with no cognitive issues (12.0% versus 23.0%, p = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression modelling identified that patients with renal impairment were 3.6 times more likely to receive warfarin compared with NOACs (odds ratio = 3.6, 95% confidence interval = 0.08-0.90, p = 0.03, 60.0% correctly predicted; Cox and Snell R2 = 0.51, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of NOACs, warfarin remains a preferred treatment option, particularly among patients with renal impairment. The high proportion of eligible patients still being prescribed antiplatelet therapy or 'no therapy' needs to be addressed.

Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology

Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly large role in emergency cardiovascular care. Although there are many challenges to successfully performing shared decision-making in the emergency department, there are numerous clinical scenarios in which it should be used. In this article, we explore new research and emerging decision aids in the following emergency care scenarios: (1) low-risk chest pain; (2) new-onset atrial fibrillation; and (3) moderate-risk syncope. These decision aids are designed to engage patients and facilitate shared decision-making for specific treatment and disposition (admit vs discharge) decisions. We then offer a 3-step, practical approach to performing shared decision-making in the acute care setting, on the basis of broad stakeholder input and previous conceptual work. Step 1 involves simply acknowledging that a clinical decision needs to be made. Step 2 involves a shared discussion about the working diagnosis and the options for care in the context of the patient's values, preferences, and circumstances. The third and final step requires the patient and provider to agree on a plan of action regarding further medical care. The implementation of shared decision-making in emergency cardiology has the potential to shift the paradigm of clinical practice from paternalism toward mutualism and improve the quality and experience of care for our patients.

Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Scoping Review

Background

Potential role of computerized decision support system on management of atrial fibrillation is not well understood.

Objectives

To systematically review studies that evaluate the effects of computerized decision support systems and decision aids on aspects pertaining to atrial fibrillation.

Data Sources

We searched Medline, Scopus and Cochrane database. Last date of search was 2016, January 10.

Selection criteria

Computerized decision support systems that help manage atrial fibrillation and decision aids that provide useful knowledge for patients with atrial fibrillation and help them to self-care.

Data collection and analysis

Two reviewers extracted data and summarized findings. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not feasible; mean differences of outcomes and confidence intervals for a difference between two Means were reported.

Results

Seven eligible studies were included in the final review. There was one observational study without controls, three observational studies with controls, one Non-Randomized Controlled Trial and two Randomized Controlled Trials. The interventions were three decision aids that were used by patients and four computerized decision support systems. Main outcomes of studies were: stroke events and major bleeding (one article), Changing doctor-nurse behavior (three articles), Time in therapeutic International Normalized Ratio range (one article), decision conflict scale (two articles), patient knowledge and anxiety about stroke and bleeding (two articles).

Conclusions

A computerized decision support system may decrease decision conflict and increase knowledge of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) about risks of AF and AF treatments. Effect of computerized decision support system on outcomes such as changing doctor-nurse behavior, anxiety about stroke and bleeding and stroke events could not be shown.We need more studies to evaluate the role of computerized decision support system in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients

In this executive summary of a Consensus Document from the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The main aim of the document was to summarise ‘best practice’ in dealing with bleeding risk in AF patients when approaching antithrombotic therapy, by addressing the epidemiology and size of the problem, and review established bleeding risk factors. We also summarise definitions of bleeding in the published literature. Patient values and preferences balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism as well as the prognostic implications of bleeding are reviewed. We also provide an overview of published bleeding risk stratification and bleeding risk schema. Brief discussion of special situations (e.g. periablation, peri-devices such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators [ICD] or pacemakers, presentation with acute coronary syndromes and/or requiring percutanous coronary interventions/stents and bridging therapy) is made, as well as a discussion of the prevention of bleeds and managing bleeding complications. Finally, this document puts forwards consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Evaluating the feasibility of conducting a trial using a patient decision aid in implantable cardioverter defibrillator candidates: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PtDA) support quality decision-making. The aim of this research was to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial delivering an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)-specific PtDA to new ICD candidates and examining preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

METHODS

Prior to recruitment, ICD candidacy was determined. Consented patients were randomized to (1) usual care or (2) PtDA intervention. Feasibility outcomes included referral and recruitment rates, successful PtDA delivery, and completion of measures. The PtDA intervention was administered prior to specialist consultation and baseline demographics, and measures of decision quality including decisional conflict (DCS), SURE test (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement), patient's ICD specific values, ICD knowledge, and health-related quality of life were recorded. Post-consultation, participant's DCS was repeated and decisions to proceed, decline, or defer ICD implantation were collected. Feasibility data was determined using descriptive statistics (continuous and categorical). Preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes were assessed using mean differences. Concordance between values and decision choice was assessed using logistic regression of the intervention group.

RESULTS

We identified 135 eligible patients. Eighty-two consented to the trial randomizing patients to usual care (n = 41) or PtDA intervention (n = 41). Feasibility outcome results were (1) referral rate at approximately 20/month, (2) recruitment rate 61%, and (3) successful delivery of PtDA and study management. Pre-consultation, PtDA patients scored lower on the DCS scale (mean, standard deviation [SD] 27.3 (18.4) compared to usual care, 49.4 (18.6); the between-group difference in means [95% confidence interval (CI)] was - 22.1[- 30.23, - 13.97]. A difference remained post-implantation 21.2 (11.7), PtDA intervention 29.9 (13.3), and usual care - 8.7 [- 14.61, - 2.86]. SURE test results supported DCS differences. The PtDA group scored higher on the ICD-related knowledge questions, with 47.50% scoring greater than 3/5 of the knowledge questions correct, compared to 23.09% receiving usual care. The mean [SD] number of correct knowledge responses out of 5 was 3.33(1.19) in the PtDA group and 2.62 (1.16) in usual care pre-implant. Concordance between values and decision choice found a strong association between predicted and actual ICD implant status in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a future definitive trial is feasible. The ICD-specific PtDA shows promise with respect to preliminary estimates of differences in outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01876173.

Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation

Guidelines recommend that patients’ values and preferences should be considered when selecting stroke prevention therapy for atrial fibrillation (SPAF). However, doing so is difficult, and tools to assist clinicians are sparse. We performed a narrative systematic review to provide clinicians with insights into the values and preferences of AF patients for SPAF antithrombotic therapy. Narrative systematic review of published literature from database inception. Research questions: 1) What are patients’ AF and SPAF therapy values and preferences? 2) How are SPAF therapy values and preferences affected by patient factors? 3) How does conveying risk information affect SPAF therapy preferences? and 4) What is known about patient values and preferences regarding novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for SPAF? Twenty-five studies were included. Overall study quality was moderate. Severe stroke was associated with the greatest disutility among AF outcomes and most patients value the stroke prevention efficacy of therapy more than other attributes. Utilities, values, and preferences about other outcomes and attributes of therapy are heterogeneous and unpredictable. Patients’ therapy preferences usually align with their values when individualised risk information is presented, although divergence from this is common. Patients value the attributes of NOACs but frequently do not prefer NOACs over warfarin when all therapy-related attributes are considered. In conclusion, patients’ values and preferences for SPAF antithrombotic therapy are heterogeneous and there is no substitute for directly clarifying patients’ individual values and preferences. Research using choice modelling and tools to help clinicians and patients clarify their SPAF therapy values and preferences are needed.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Availability of patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is a common irregular heart rhythm that increases patients' risk of stroke. Aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, and an implantable device can reduce this risk. Given the availability of multiple comparable options, this decision depends on patient preferences and is appropriate for the use of decision aids and other efforts to promote shared decision making. The objective of this review was to examine the existence and accessibility of, as well as select outcomes associated with, published, formally evaluated patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to March 2016 with a research librarian. Two authors independently reviewed potential articles, selected trials meeting inclusion criteria, and assessed outcome measures. Outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement, choice, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 666 articles; most were excluded for not examining stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and 7 studies were eventually included. Six decision aids displayed combinations of aspirin, warfarin, or no therapy; 1 included a direct oral anticoagulant. Interventions were associated with increased patient knowledge, increased likelihood of making a choice, and low decisional conflict. Use of decision aids in this review was associated with less selection of warfarin. None of the tested decision aids are currently available.

DISCUSSION

Published patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation are not accessible for clinical use. Given the availability of multiple comparable options, there is a need to develop and test new patient decision aids in this context.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model.

Design

Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Adults.

Intervention

Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening.

Review methods

Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Results

Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age.

Conclusions

A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations.

Limitations

Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability.

Future work

Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Trends in the prevalence and management of pre-stroke atrial fibrillation, the South London Stroke Register, 1995-2014

Background

Previous studies have found low use of anticoagulation prior to stroke, in people with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study examined data on patients with AF-related stroke from a population-based stroke register, and sought to examine changes in management of AF prior to stroke, and reasons for suboptimal treatment, in those who were known to be at a high risk of stroke.

Methods

The South London Stroke Register (SLSR) is an ongoing population-based register recording first-in-a-lifetime stroke. Trends in the prevalence of AF, and antithrombotic medication prescribed before the stroke, were investigated from 1995 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the factors associated with appropriate management.

Results

Of the 5041 patients on the register, 816 (16.2%) were diagnosed with AF before their stroke. AF related stroke increased substantially among Black Carribean and Black African patients, comprising 5% of the overall cohort in 1995–1998, increasing to 25% by 2011–2014 (p<0.001). Anticoagulant prescription in AF patients at high-risk of stroke (CHADS2 score [> = 2]) increased from 9% (1995–1998) to 30% (2011–2014) (p<0.001). Antiplatelet prescription was more commonly prescribed throughout all time periods (43% to 64% of high-risk patients.) Elderly patients (>65) were significantly less likely to be prescribed an anticoagulant, with ethnicity, gender and deprivation showing no association with anticoagulation.

Conclusions

Most AF-related strokes occurred in people who could have been predicted to be at high risk before their stroke, yet were not prescribed optimal preventative treatment. The elderly,despite being at highest stroke risk, were rarely prescribed anticoagulants.