Stephens, Shannon W.

Background ‘Exception from informed consent’ research requires community consultation to ensure that the views of the local population have been considered. Using market research companies to distribute surveys across local populations is attractive because it ensures adequate response rates. It is not known whether individuals who respond to surveys are typical of the targeted communities. The purpose of this study is to compare the demographics of the survey respondents with that of the general population in the same area. Methods This is an analysis of data collected as part of the ‘Trauma Resuscitation with Group O Whole Blood or Products’ (TROOP) trial. The surveys used a commercial market research service to reach the communities of interest and consisted of 18 questions designed to evaluate respondents’ willingness to be enrolled in the TROOP trial and the demographics of survey respondents. Results Catchment populations varied from 0.5 to 9.4 million residents, with a total of 33.5 million. The racial and ethnic composition of the population (and the survey respondents, in brackets) was 44.8% (57.0%) white, 25.7% (13.4%) Hispanic, 12.7% (19.4%) black, 8.0% (2.5%) multiracial, 7.9% (4.4%) Asian, 0.7% (0.9%) Native American, and 0.2% (0.5%) Islanders. Of the male population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 12.2% (15.3%) were aged 18years to 24 years, 20.5% (22.3%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 18.1% (24.9%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 16.3% (18.5%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 15.5% (14.8%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 17.4% (4.3%) aged 65 years and over. Of the female population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 11.0% (18.5%) were aged 18 years to 24 years, 18.4% (22.6%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 16.4% (23.5%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 15.0% (17.3%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 18.5% (14.1%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 20.6% (3.9%) aged 65 years and over. Conclusions For this trial, using a market research company to distribute community surveys resulted in respondents that are broadly representative of the geographic areas where the trial will be conducted, except for individuals over the age of 65 years and older. This finding provides reassurance to investigators and institutional review boards that the views expressed by respondents are representative of the population where the trial will be conducted. Level of evidence III

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.