Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Effectiveness of shared decision making strategies for stroke prevention among patients with atrial fibrillation:
Elissa M Ozanne1, Geoffrey D Barnes2, Juan P Brito3
1Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA elissa.ozanne@hsc.utah.edu.
Insights
Decision aids for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation significantly improve shared decision-making, patient knowledge, and reduce decisional conflict. Using these aids, alone or combined, offers advantages over usual care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Services Research
- Patient Decision Making
Background:
- Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) poses a significant stroke risk.
- Effective stroke prevention in NVAF requires shared decision-making between patients and clinicians.
- Existing decision support tools may vary in their impact on shared decision-making quality.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the effectiveness of patient decision aids and clinician encounter decision aids in enhancing shared decision-making for stroke prevention in NVAF patients.
- To evaluate the impact of these decision aids on patient knowledge and decisional conflict.
Main Methods:
- A cluster randomized controlled trial involving 1117 patients with NVAF across six US academic medical centers.
- Patients and clinicians were randomized to receive either a decision aid (patient-facing or clinician-facing) or usual care.
- Primary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making (OPTION12), patient knowledge, and decisional conflict.
Main Results:
- Combined use of patient and encounter decision aids significantly improved shared decision-making quality, patient knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict compared to usual care.
- Both patient decision aids and encounter decision aids used individually also showed significant benefits for shared decision-making and knowledge.
- No significant differences were found in treatment choices or patient satisfaction, nor in visit length.
Conclusions:
- Decision aids, whether patient-facing, clinician-facing, or combined, enhance shared decision-making, patient knowledge, and reduce decisional conflict in NVAF stroke prevention.
- The study demonstrates the advantage of using pre-visit or in-visit decision aids over usual care.
- These findings support the integration of decision aids into clinical practice for NVAF management.
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 (CHA2DS2-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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Atherosclerosis IV: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care

