128
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          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.

          Methods

          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 (CHA 2DS 2-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.

          Discussion

          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.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032. Registered on 9 September 2016.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2178-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy.

          No practical method for identifying patients with low heath literacy exists. We sought to develop screening questions for identifying patients with inadequate or marginal health literacy. Patients (n=332) at a VA preoperative clinic completed in-person interviews that included 16 health literacy screening questions on a 5-point Likert scale, followed by a validated health literacy measure, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOHFLA). Based on the STOFHLA, patients were classified as having either inadequate, marginal, or adequate health literacy. Each of the 16 screening questions was evaluated and compared to two comparison standards: (1) inadequate health literacy and (2) inadequate or marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Fifteen participants (4.5%) had inadequate health literacy and 25 (7.5%) had marginal health literacy on the STOHFLA. Three of the screening questions, "How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials?" "How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?" and "How often do you have problems learning about your medical condition because of difficulty understanding written information?" were effective in detecting inadequate health literacy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively). These questions were weaker for identifying patients with marginal health literacy. Three questions were each effective screening tests for inadequate health literacy in this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.

            Basic numeracy skills are necessary before patients can understand the risks of medical treatments. Previous research has used objective measures, similar to mathematics tests, to evaluate numeracy. To design a subjective measure (i.e., self-assessment) of quantitative ability that distinguishes low- and high-numerate individuals yet is less aversive, quicker to administer, and more usable for telephone and Internet surveys than existing numeracy measures. Paper-and-pencil questionnaires. The general public (N = 703) surveyed at 2 hospitals. Forty-nine subjective numeracy questions were compared to measures of objective numeracy. An 8-item measure, the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), was developed through several rounds of testing. Four items measure people's beliefs about their skill in performing various mathematical operations, and 4 measure people's preferences regarding the presentation of numerical information. The SNS was significantly correlated with Lipkus and others' objective numeracy scale (correlations: 0.63-0.68) yet was completed in less time (24 s/item v. 31 s/item, P < 0.05) and was perceived as less stressful (1.62 v. 2.69, P < 0.01) and less frustrating (1.92 v. 2.88, P < 0.01). Fifty percent of participants who completed the SNS volunteered to participate in another study, whereas only 8% of those who completed the Lipkus and others scale similarly volunteered (odds ratio = 11.00, 95% confidence interval = 2.14-56.65). The SNS correlates well with mathematical test measures of objective numeracy but can be administered in less time and with less burden. In addition, it is much more likely to leave participants willing to participate in additional research and shows much lower rates of missing or incomplete data.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimation of total incremental health care costs in patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States.

              Detailed information on the cost burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. To provide an up-to-date estimate of the national cost of AF, we conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study using administrative claims from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental research data bases, 2004 to 2006. Patients aged ≥20 years with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient AF diagnoses in 2005 (first diagnosis=index) and ≥12 months' enrollment before and after index were selected. AF patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) with non-AF control subjects. Medical costs (2008 US$), including AF costs, other cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular costs, were examined over 1 year after index. National incremental costs of AF were based on age-/sex-specific AF prevalence projections for 2010. In total, 89 066 AF patients were matched to non-AF control subjects. Over 1 year, 37.5% of AF versus 17.5% of control subjects were hospitalized and 2.1% versus 0.1% died during hospitalization. For AF versus control subjects, mean annual inpatient costs per patient were $7841 versus $2622 (incremental cost, $5218), outpatient medical costs were $9225 versus $5629 ($3596), and outpatient pharmacy costs were $3605 versus $3714 (-$109) (all P<0.001). The total incremental cost of AF was $8705 per patient. The national incremental cost of AF was $26.0 billion (AF, $6.0 billion; other cardiovascular, $9.9 billion; noncardiovascular, $10.1 billion). Cardiovascular costs were based on claims with a primary disease diagnosis and may be underestimates. On the basis of current US age- and sex-specific prevalence data, the national incremental AF cost is estimated to range from $6.0 to $26.0 billion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Kunneman.Marleen@mayo.edu
                Branda.Megan@mayo.edu
                Noseworthy.Peter@mayo.edu
                Mark.Linzer@hcmed.org
                Bruce.Burnett@ParkNicollet.com
                Dick.Sara@mayo.edu
                Bonilla.Gabriela@mayo.edu
                Fernandez.Cara@mayo.edu
                Haeshik.Gorr@hcmed.org
                Mike.Wambua@hcmed.org
                Shelly.Keune@ParkNicollet.com
                Zeballospalacios.Claudia@mayo.edu
                Hargraves.Ian@mayo.edu
                Shah.Nilay@mayo.edu
                Montori.Victor@mayo.edu
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                29 September 2017
                29 September 2017
                2017
                : 18
                : 443
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 167X, GRID grid.66875.3a, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, ; 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 167X, GRID grid.66875.3a, Health Services Research, Mayo Clinic, ; Rochester, MN USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 167X, GRID grid.66875.3a, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, ; Rochester, MN USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 167X, GRID grid.66875.3a, Heart Rhythm Section, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, ; 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9206 4546, GRID grid.414021.2, Division of General Internal Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, ; Minneapolis, MN USA
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0434 2710, GRID grid.417226.4, Thrombosis Clinic and Anticoagulation Services, Park Nicollet Health Services, ; St Louis Park, MN USA
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9206 4546, GRID grid.414021.2, University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, ; Minneapolis, MN USA
                [8 ]School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, USA
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 167X, GRID grid.66875.3a, Division of Health Care and Policy Research, Mayo Clinic, ; Rochester, MN USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8853-5189
                Article
                2178
                10.1186/s13063-017-2178-y
                5622521
                28962662
                0cd67f31-e561-48b5-93e0-270dead9edc8
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 9 June 2017
                : 5 September 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000050, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute;
                Award ID: RO1 HL131535-01
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                atrial fibrillation,anticoagulation,shared decision making,decision aid,conversation aid,communication,medication uptake,medication adherence

                Comments

                Comment on this article