Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids for Stroke Prevention Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Management

Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF.

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge.

RESULTS

13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I2=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I2=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218025.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.