Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

A novel shared decision-making (SDM) tool for anticoagulation management in atrial fibrillation: protocol for a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that requires anticoagulation therapy to prevent stroke. However, there is still a significant under-/over-treatment in stroke prevention for patients with AF. The adherence and the risk of bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation therapy (OACs) are major concerns. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach that involves patients and healthcare providers in making decisions about treatment options. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a novel SDM tool for anticoagulation management in AF.

METHODS

The study will be a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial involving 440 patients with AF in 8 community health service centers (clusters) in Shanghai, China. The SDM group will receive anticoagulation management through the novel SDM tool, while the control group will receive standard care. The follow-up period will be at least 2 years. The primary outcome will be any bleeding event, while secondary outcomes include the accordance of stroke prophylaxis for AF according to the current guidelines, time in therapeutic range (TTR), the occurrences of major bleeding and thrombosis events, and patient knowledge, adherence, and satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of shared decision-making in improving the appropriateness of OAC use in Chinese AF patients. The findings may inform the development of guidelines and policies for the management of AF and anticoagulation therapy in China and other countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR ChiCTR2200062123. Registered on 23 July 2022.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

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.

Variation in bleeding risk estimates among online calculators: Cross-sectional study of apps used by and for patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To assess the variation in bleeding risk estimates and risk stratification among Web and mobile applications for patients with atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Simulated patient population.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypothetical patient cohorts that encompassed all possible binary risk factor combinations for each clinical prediction model.

INTERVENTIONS

Twenty-five bleeding risk calculators (18 Web and 7 mobile apps), each of which used 1 of 4 clinical prediction models to predict an individual's 12-month bleed risk: ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation), HAS-BLED (hypertension [systolic blood pressure >160 mm Hg], abnormal renal or liver function, stroke [caused by bleeding], bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly [age >65 years], drugs [acetylsalicylic acid or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] or alcohol [≥8 drinks per week]), HEMORR₂HAGES (hepatic or renal disease, ethanol abuse, malignancy, older [age >75 years], reduced platelet count or function, rebleeding risk [history of past bleeding], hypertension [uncontrolled], anemia, genetic factors, excessive fall risk, and stroke), and mOBRI (modified Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Four simulated cohorts were constructed. The coefficient of variation, relative difference (RD), and 95% CI for annual bleeding risk estimates were calculated for all hypothetical patient cohorts. Additionally, pairwise agreement between calculators across low- (<10%), moderate- (10% to 20%), and high-risk (>20%) categories of patients was determined.

RESULTS

The risk estimates the calculators generated were imprecise, with coefficients of variation ranging from 14% for HEMORR₂HAGES to 64% for mOBRI. Wide variation was observed in annual risk estimates for calculators using the mOBRI (maximum RD=4.3) and HAS-BLED (maximum RD=3.1) models. The 95% CI of mean annual bleeding risk varied among models; 1 calculator using the HAS-BLED model had a 95% CI of mean annual risk estimates of 5.4% to 6.2%, while another HAS-BLED calculator reported a 95% CI of 17.7% to 18.5%. Concordance for risk category stratification among calculators was high for those based on mOBRI and ATRIA (=1 for both). Poor agreement was observed in 1 calculator using HEMORR₂HAGES (=0.54) and another using HAS-BLED ( range=-0.11 to 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Inconsistencies and a lack of precision were observed in annual risk estimates and risk stratification produced by Web and mobile bleeding risk calculators for patients with atrial fibrillation. Clinicians should refer to annual bleeding risks observed in major randomized controlled trials to inform risk estimates communicated to patients.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules

OBJECTIVE

To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.

DESIGN, PATIENT AND MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

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.

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.

Quality evaluation of patient educational resources for catheter ablation treatment of atrial fibrillation

AIMS 

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing rapidly with the growing utilization of catheter ablation (CA) as a treatment strategy. Education for individuals undertaking this procedure is diverse, with varying degrees of information provided and little standardization. Many individuals utilize the internet as an educational resource. However, there is limited regulation of online patient information. To evaluate the quality of web-based patient education resources for patients undergoing CA for AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS 

A cross-sectional observational study was performed to obtain all freely accessible online educational resources about CA for AF from inception until 1 October 2019. Search engines used: Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was used to evaluate the quality of web-based patient education materials and printable tools. The PEMAT score objectively measures both the understandability and actionability of educational material. A total of 17 websites and 15 printable sources were included in the analysis. Non-government organizations developed 19% of materials and 75% were created by private or university hospitals. Nineteen sources (59.4%) were rated as highly understandable: 9 websites (52.9%) and 10 printable tools (66.7%). Seven sources (21.9%) were rated as highly actionable: 6 (35.3%) websites and 1 (6.7%) printable tool.

CONCLUSION 

The overall understandability of educational CA material was high, whilst improvement of actionability is warranted. The addition of summaries, visual aids, and tools, such as checklists may improve quality. These findings have significant implications for the development of patient educational material for CA in AF.

Factors Associated With Patient Engagement in Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention Among Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent of, and factors associated with, patient engagement in shared decision-making (SDM) for stroke prevention among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We used data from the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements-Atrial Fibrillation study which includes older ( ≥65 years) patients with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc≥2. Participants reported engagement in SDM by answering whether they actively participated in choosing to take an oral anticoagulant (OAC) for their condition. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess associations between sociodemographic, clinical, geriatric, and psychosocial factors and patient engagement in SDM.

RESULTS

A total of 807 participants (mean age 75 years; 48% female) on an OAC were studied. Of these, 61% engaged in SDM. Older participants (≥80 years) and those cognitively impaired were less likely to engage in SDM, while those very knowledgeable of their AF associated stroke risk were more likely to do so than respective comparison groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of older adults with AF did not engage in SDM for stroke prevention with older patients and those cognitively impaired less likely to do so. Clinicians should identify patients who are less likely to engage in SDM, promote patient engagement, and foster better patient-provider communication which may enhance long-term patient outcomes.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Association of conflicting information from healthcare providers and poor shared decision making with suboptimal adherence in direct oral anticoagulant treatment: A cross-sectional study in patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To assess direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) adherence and to determine possible determinants for suboptimal adherence in Dutch patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of DOAC users who completed a self-reported questionnaire. Adherence was measured with Morisky8-item Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate determinants affecting adherence.

RESULTS

398 DOAC users completed the questionnaire (mean age 70.6 ± 9.2years). Approximately one in four patients had suboptimal adherence (MMAS-8 < 8). Multivariable analysis showed that patients who felt to have received conflicting information about the treatment, patients with higher educational level and patients who were not sufficiently involved in the treatment choice had a higher odds of suboptimal adherence.

CONCLUSION

DOAC adherence was suboptimal. Conflicting information received from different healthcare providers (HCPs), lack of shared decision making and the patients' educational level were determinants negatively affecting DOAC adherence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts towards identifying suboptimally adherent DOAC patients are needed since they are at higher risk to develop thromboembolic events. Adherence counselling should be systematically and repeatedly encouraged and shared decision making should become more mainstream. Moreover, reinforced education of both patients and HCPs combined with interprofessional collaboration are potential solutions to prevent knowledge gaps and communication of conflicting information.

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.

Normalization of a conversation tool to promote shared decision making about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation within a practical randomized trial of its effectiveness: a cross-sectional study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) implementation remains challenging. The factors that promote or hinder implementation of SDM tools for use during the consultation, including contextual factors such as clinician burnout and organizational support, remain unclear. We explored these factors in the context of a practical multicenter randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of an SDM conversation tool for patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation therapy.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we recruited clinicians who were regularly involved in conversations with patients regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Clinicians reported their characteristics and burnout symptoms using the two-item Maslach Burnout Inventory. Clinicians were trained in using the SDM tool, and they recorded their perceptions of the tool’s normalization potential using the Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) survey instrument and verbally reflected on their answers to these survey questions. When possible, the training sessions and clinicians’ verbal responses to the conversation tool were recorded.

Results

Our study comprised 183 clinicians recruited into the trial (168 with survey responses and 112 with recordings). Overall, clinicians gave high scores to the normalization potential of the intervention; they endorsed all domains of normalization to the same extent, regardless of site, clinician characteristics, or burnout ratings. In interviews, clinicians paid significant attention to making sense of the tool. Tool buy-in seemed to depend heavily on their ability to see the tool as accurate and “evidence-based” and their perceptions of having time in the consultation to use it.

Conclusions

While time in the consultation remains a barrier, we did not find a significant association between burnout symptoms and normalization of an SDM conversation tool. Possible areas for improving the normalization of SDM conversation tools in clinical practice include enabling collaboration among clinicians to implement the tool and reporting how clinicians elsewhere use the tool. Direct measures of normalization (i.e., observing how often clinicians access the tool in practice outside of the clinical trial) may further elucidate the role that contextual factors, such as clinician burnout, play in the implementation of SDM.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032. Registered on 9 September 2016.

Developing a Conversation Aid to Support Shared Decision Making: Reflections on Designing Anticoagulation Choice

Patient-centered care requires that treatments respond to the problematic situation of each patient in a manner that makes intellectual, emotional, and practical sense, an achievement that requires shared decision making (SDM). To implement SDM in practice, tools-sometimes called conversation aids or decision aids-are prepared by collating, curating, and presenting high-quality, comprehensive, and up-to-date evidence. Yet, the literature offers limited guidance for how to make evidence support SDM. Herein, we describe our approach and the challenges encountered during the development of Anticoagulation Choice, a conversation aid to help patients with atrial fibrillation and their clinicians jointly consider the risk of thromboembolic stroke and decide whether and how to respond to this risk with anticoagulation.

Shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation: navigating complex issues in partnership with the patient

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for stroke. Although anticoagulation is effective in mitigating this risk, many high-risk patients are not anticoagulated in routine practice. Furthermore, as many as 50% of those who are prescribed an anticoagulant stop treatment within a year. This under treatment may be due, in part, to difficulty in navigating difficult decisions about initiating potentially lifelong therapy with significant costs, potential risks, and impact on daily life. To address these challenges, the most recent American guidelines issued a class I recommendation to use shared decision-making (SDM) to individualize patients' antithrombotic care. The call by the major cardiovascular organizations for SDM is in an effort to improve quality of care by promoting decisions that reflect what is best for an individual patient based on their stroke and bleeding risks, as well as their comorbid conditions and socio-personal context. SDM is readily applicable to current cardiovascular practice, but ongoing work will be needed to determine whether brief, evidence-based, and patient-oriented tools are able to support thoughtful, patient-centered decision-making and, ultimately, improve the rates of appropriate treatment initiation and adherence.