LaVecchia, Christina M.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multiple decision aid strategies in promoting high quality shared decision making for prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Design Cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting Six academic medical centers in the United States. Participants Patient participants were aged ≥18 with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation, at risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥1 for men, ≥2 for women), and scheduled for a clinical appointment to discuss stroke prevention strategies. Participating clinicians were those who manage stroke prevention strategies for participating patients. Intervention Patients were randomized to use a patient decision aid or usual care; clinicians were randomized to use an encounter decision aid or usual care with all participating patients. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were quality of shared decision making measured by OPTION12, knowledge of atrial fibrillation and its management, and decisional conflict. Results 1117 participants across six sites were included in the analysis. Compared with usual care, the combined use of both the patient decision aid and the encounter decision aid improved the quality of shared decision making (adjusted mean difference 12.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.2; P<0.001), improved patients’ knowledge (odds ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.09; P<0.001), and reduced patients’ decisional conflict (adjusted mean difference −6.3 (95% CI −9.6 to −3.1; P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also observed with the encounter decision aid alone versus usual care for all three outcomes and with the patient decision aid alone versus usual care for quality of shared decision making and knowledge. No important differences were observed in treatment choices for stroke prevention or in participants’ satisfaction. No statistically significant difference in the length of visit across study groups was detected. Conclusion Patients who received any decision aid (encounter decision aid, patient decision aid, or both) had lower decisional conflict, better shared decision making, and greater knowledge than those receiving no decision aid, except for the effect of the patient decision aid on decisional conflict, which did not reach statistical significance. The study establishes that use of either pre-visit or in-visit decision aids individually or in combination is advantageous compared with usual care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04357288 .

AbstractBackgroundReflecting (“stop‐and‐think”) before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self‐reported SDM measures.MethodsWe asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3‐item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open‐ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.ResultsIn Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores (“less” SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).ConclusionReflection‐before‐quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient‐reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.