Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Aug;60(8):1434-41.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04080.x. Epub 2012 Aug 2.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision support tool to improve the quality of communication and decision-making in individuals with atrial fibrillation

Liana Fraenkel  1 , Richard L Street Jr, Virginia Towle, John R O'Leary, Lynne Iannone, Peter H Van Ness, Terri R Fried
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision support tool to improve the quality of communication and decision-making in individuals with atrial fibrillation

Liana Fraenkel et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: To design a tool for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to inform individuals of their individual stroke and bleeding risks, assist in clarifying priorities, and promote communication.

Design: Clustered randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Primary care clinics.

Participants: Individuals with NVAF (N = 135).

Intervention: Completion of tool before regularly scheduled visit.

Measurements: Primary outcomes included the 100-point informed and values clarity subscales of the decisional conflict scale (lower scores indicate individual is more informed and has greater clarity). Secondary outcomes included knowledge, patient-clinician communication, and change in treatment.

Results: Sixty-nine individuals were enrolled in the intervention group and 66 in the control group. After their visit, intervention participants had lower scores on the informed (mean difference = -11.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -21.1 to -2.7) and values clarity subscales (mean difference = -14.6, 95% CI = -22.6 to -6.6). Greater proportions of intervention participants knew medications for reducing stroke risk (61% vs 31%, P < .001) and side effects (49% vs 37%, P = .07). Stroke (71% vs 12%) and bleeding risk (69% vs 20%) were discussed more frequently in the intervention than control group (P < .001). Five intervention participants expressed a preference for medication that was not concordant with their current treatment plan. There was no change in treatment plan in either group.

Conclusion: The tool was effective in improving perceived and actual knowledge and values clarity and in increasing physician-patient communication but did not change treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of screening and enrollment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2009:CD001431. - PubMed
    1. Fraenkel L, Fried TR. Individualized medical decision making: Necessary, achievable, but not yet attainable. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:566–569. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fried TR, McGraw S, Agostini JV, et al. Views of older persons with multiple morbidities on competing outcomes and clinical decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1839–1844. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, et al. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:531–535. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, et al. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians’ participatory decision-making style: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33:1176–1187. - PubMed

Publication types