Fagerlin, Angela

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 .

Introduction Decision 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. Design Using 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. Results User 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. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing 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. Highlights First-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.

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.

Abstract There are few data on the quality of cancer treatment information available on social media. Here, we quantify the accuracy of cancer treatment information on social media and its potential for harm. Two cancer experts reviewed 50 of the most popular social media articles on each of the 4 most common cancers. The proportion of misinformation and potential for harm were reported for all 200 articles and their association with the number of social media engagements using a 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 200 total articles, 32.5% (n = 65) contained misinformation and 30.5% (n = 61) contained harmful information. Among articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50 of 65) contained harmful information. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was greater than factual articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1200-4700] vs 1600 [819-4700], P = .05). The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than safe articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1400-4700] vs 1500 [810-4700], P = .007).

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.

For decades, investigators have conducted innovative research on shared decision-making (SDM), helping patients and clinicians to discuss health decisions and balance evidence with patients’ preferences for possible outcomes of options. In addition, investigators have developed and used rigorous methods for conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER), comparing the benefits and risks of different interventions in real-world settings with outcomes that matter to patients and other stakeholders. However, incorporating CER findings into clinical practice presents numerous challenges. In March 2012, we organized a conference at Washington University in St Louis (MO, USA) aimed at developing a network of researchers to collaborate in developing, conducting and disseminating research about the implementation of CER through SDM. Meeting attendees discussed conceptual similarities and differences between CER and SDM, challenges in implementing CER and SDM in practice, specific challenges when engaging SDM with unique populations and examples of ways to overcome these challenges. CER and SDM are related processes that emphasize examining the best clinical evidence and how it applies to real patients in real practice settings. SDM can provide one opportunity for clinicians to discuss CER findings with patients and engage in a dialog about how to manage uncertainty about evidence in order to make decisions on an individual patient level. This meeting highlighted key challenges and suggested avenues to pursue such that CER and SDM can be implemented into routine clinical practice.