Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized
Marleen Kunneman1,2, Megan E Branda1,3,4, Ian G Hargraves1
1Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Insights
Shared decision-making (SDM) tools improve clinician satisfaction and patient involvement in atrial fibrillation (AF) care. However, these tools did not significantly alter treatment decisions or encounter duration for AF patients.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Medicine
- Health Services Research
- Patient Engagement
Background:
- Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) but its effectiveness is not well-established.
- Assessing the impact of SDM tools on decision quality and patient outcomes in AF is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effect of an SDM tool on the quality of shared decision-making and anticoagulant treatment choices in patients with AF.
- To compare outcomes between standard care and care incorporating an SDM tool.
Main Methods:
- An encounter-randomized trial involving 922 patients with nonvalvular AF and their clinicians.
- Randomization to either standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool.
- Assessment of SDM quality, treatment decisions, encounter duration, and clinician satisfaction.
Main Results:
- The SDM tool significantly increased patient involvement in decision-making and clinician satisfaction.
- No significant differences were observed in treatment decisions or encounter duration between the arms.
- Patients and clinicians reported high communication quality, knowledge, and low decisional conflict in both groups.
Conclusions:
- The use of an SDM encounter tool enhances SDM quality and clinician satisfaction in AF care.
- SDM tools may not significantly alter final treatment decisions or the time required for encounters.
- Findings help inform the implementation and expectations for SDM tools in AF management.
Importance:
Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.
Objective:
To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019.
Interventions:
Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process.
Results:
The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes).
Conclusion And Relevance:
The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF.
Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.
Related Concept Videos
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Atherosclerosis IV: Nursing Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Clinical Trials: Overview

