Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here):
Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) making decisions regarding anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Decision support tools (e.g., Decision Aids [DAs]) facilitate SDM. However, little research has compared the effectiveness of the two most common types of DAs: (1) encounter decision aid (EDA) and (2) pre-encounter patient decision aid (PDA). Our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of PDAs and EDAs on SDM during AF clinical encounters where stroke prevention strategies were discussed.

Research Question: Do decision aids (PDA or EDA), alone or in combination, improve patients’ AF decision-making experience compared to usual care?

Methods: A cluster randomized multi-center trial in patients with AF comparing usual care (no DA) vs. one DA (EDA or PDA) or both DAs. Clinicians and patients were randomized independently into 4 study arms. Clinicians were randomized to use or not use the EDA for all study visits, and patients were randomized to use or not use the PDA. Co-primary outcome domains were: (1) quality of SDM (2) patient knowledge, and (3) decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes included: (1) treatment choice, (2) treatment initiation, and (3) treatment persistence. Patient characteristics were assessed. We will present comparisons of the randomized DAs on the co-primary and secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses.

Results: Between December 2020-July 2023, investigators in 6 U.S. healthcare systems enrolled 1117 patients (mean (M) age 69, 63% male, 89% White) and 107 clinicians. Compared to usual care (no DA, M=31.6), SDM was better in patients receiving PDA (M=35.4) and EDA (44.5) alone or together (M=43.7; p’s<0.001). Knowledge about AF was greatest for those receiving both DAs or the PDA alone (84% accurate responses for PDA and both vs 76% with no DA, p<0.001), followed closely by the EDA alone (82%, p=0.003). Finally, both DAs (M=19.5) and EDA alone (M=20.0) had better decisional conflict scores compared to usual care (M=25.8; p’s<0.001). We will present analyses that assess the impact of DAs on secondary outcomes and interactions with DA, patient, and clinical characteristics across each outcome.

Conclusions: In one of the first randomized trials examining the comparative effectiveness of EDAs and PDAs on SDM in clinical medicine, both PDAs and EDAs improved shared decision-making, decisional conflict, and knowledge compared to patients receiving usual care.