Shared Decision Making Tools for People Facing Stroke Prevention Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Torres Roldan VD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191170 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionDecision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before.DesignUsing iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews.ResultsUser testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA.LimitationsThese DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology.ConclusionsDesigning complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them.HighlightsFirst-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately.User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids.Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.
| S-EPMC10765759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes.This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA2DS2-VASc score???1 in men, or???2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records.This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.
| S-EPMC5622521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach in which patients and clinicians act as partners in making medical decisions. Patients receive the information needed to decide and are encouraged to balance risks, benefits, and preferences. Informative materials are vital to SDM. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and responsible for 10% of ischemic strokes, however 1/3 of patients are not on appropriate anticoagulation. Decision sharing may facilitate treatment acceptance, improving outcomes. Aims To develop a framework of the components needed to create novel SDM tools and to provide practical examples through a case-study of stroke prevention in AF. Methods We analyze the design values of a web-based SDM tool created to better inform AF patients about anticoagulation. The tool was developed in partnership with patient advocates, multi-disciplinary investigators, and private design firms. It was refined through iterative, recursive testing in patients with AF. Its effectiveness is being evaluated in a multisite clinical trial led by Stanford University and sponsored by the American Heart Association. Findings The main components considered when creating the Stanford AFib tool included: design and software; content identification; information delivery; inclusive communication, user engagement; patient feedback; clinician experience; and anticipation of implementation and dissemination. We also highlight the ethical principles underlying SDM; matters of diversity and inclusion, linguistic variety, accessibility, and health literacy. The Stanford AFib Guide patient tool is available at: https://afibguide.com and the clinician tool at https://afibguide.com/clinician. Conclusion Attention to a range of vital development and design factors can facilitate tool adoption and information acquisition by diverse cultural, educational, and socioeconomic subpopulations. With thoughtful design, digital tools may decrease decision regret and improve treatment outcomes across many decision-making situations in healthcare.
| S-EPMC9893868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceShared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionsStandard 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 measuresQuality 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceThe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.
| S-EPMC7372497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.Materials and methodsCHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.ResultsIndividual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.Key limitationsCurrent risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.ConclusionsWe present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.
| S-EPMC4708062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods and resultsWe evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively].ConclusionShared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.
| S-EPMC7778449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsAs a first step in developing a decision aid to support shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to evaluate treatment options for rhythm and symptom control, we aimed to measure decision quality and describe decision-making processes among patients and clinicians involved in decision-making around catheter ablation for AF.Methods and resultsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study guided by an SDM model outlining decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Patients and clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about decision-making around ablation, feelings of decision conflict and regret, and preferences for the content, delivery, and format of a hypothetical decision aid for ablation. Patients also completed surveys about AF symptoms and aspects of decision quality. Fifteen patients (mean age 71.1 ± 8.6 years; 27% female) and five clinicians were recruited. For most patients, decisional conflict and regret were low, but they also reported low levels of information and agency in the decision-making process. Most clinicians report routinely providing patients with information and encouraging engagement during consultations. Patients reported preferences for an interactive, web-based decision aid that clearly presents evidence regarding outcomes using data, visualizations, videos, and personalized risk assessments, and is available in multiple languages.ConclusionDisconnects between clinician efforts to provide information and bolster agency and patient experiences of decision-making suggest decision aids may be needed to improve decision quality in practice. Reported experiences with current decision-making practices and preferences for decision aid content, format, and delivery can support the user-centred design and development of a decision aid.
| S-EPMC10111971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment with oral anticoagulants (OACs) could prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF), but side effects developed due to OACs may cause patients anxiety during decision making. This study aimed to investigate whether shared decision making (SDM) reduces anxiety and improves adherence to stroke prevention measures in patients with AF.MethodsA one-group pretest-posttest design using a questionnaire survey was applied at the outpatient cardiology clinic between July 2019 until September 2020. A Patient Decision Aid (PDA) tool was used for the completion of the questionnaire survey after health education and counseling. Ten questions were included for patients' recognition of SDM, and a 5-point scoring method was used, where "very much" was scored as 5 points, and "totally not" was scored as 1 point.ResultsFifty-two patients with AF were enrolled. In terms of patients' recognition of SDM, points of more than 4.17 out of 5 were noted, indicating recognition above the level of "very much." The patients' anxiety scores before SDM were 3.56 (1.2), with a decrease of 0.64 points (p < 0.001) to 2.92 (1.3) after SDM. After SDM, the number of patients who decided to take OAC increased from 76.9% to 88.5%, and the 15.4% answering "unclear" decreased to 1.9% (p = 0.006). The patients' anxiety levels after SDM were associated with gender (p = 0.025).ConclusionsThe approach using SDM enhanced our understanding of the pros and cons of OAC treatment and, in patients with AF, decreased anxiety about therapeutic decisions and increased willingness to accept treatment options.
| S-EPMC10463811 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) preceding lung cancer screening is important for populations that are underrepresented in lung cancer screening trials. Current evidence-based guidelines; however, do not address personal risk and outcomes in underrepresented populations. This study compared two SDM decision aids (Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com) for SDM efficacy, decision regret and knowledge.MethodsWe conducted a prospective trial of lung cancer screening patients (N = 237) randomized to SDM with Option Grids or Shouldiscreen.com. To evaluate the SDM process after lung cancer screening, patients answered two questionnaires: CollaboRATE and Decision Regret. Patients also completed a questionnaire to test their knowledge of lung cancer screening.ResultsPatients were predominantly African American (61.6%), though multiple races, varying education levels and equal genders were represented. Patients in both Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com groups reported favorable SDM experiences (P = 0.60) and equivalent knowledge about lung cancer screening (P = 0.43). Patients using Shouldiscreen.com had less knowledge regarding the potential complications of subsequent testing (P = 0.02). Shouldiscreen.com patients had increased regret regarding their decision to pursue screening (P = 0.02).ConclusionsOption Grids and Shouldiscreen.com both facilitated a meaningful SDM process. However, Option Grids patients experienced decreased decision regret and enhanced knowledge of the potential complications of screening.
| S-EPMC8458019 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9238511 | biostudies-literature