↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2178-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marleen Kunneman, Megan E. Branda, Peter A. Noseworthy, Mark Linzer, Bruce Burnett, Sara Dick, Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla, Cara A. Fernandez, Haeshik Gorr, Mike Wambua, Shelly Keune, Claudia Zeballos-Palacios, Ian Hargraves, Nilay D. Shah, Victor M. Montori

Abstract

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. 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 (CHA2DS2-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. 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. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 37 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 17%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 44 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,790,504
of 21,235,767 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,527
of 5,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,586
of 296,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,235,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them