A randomized trial to assess the impact of an antithrombotic decision aid in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the DAAFI trial protocol [ISRCTN14429643]

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are often advocated as a means to assist patient and health care provider decision making when faced with complicated treatment or screening decisions. Despite an exponential growth in the availability of decision aids in recent years, their impact on long-term treatment decisions and patient adherence is uncertain due to a paucity of rigorous studies. The choice of antithrombotic therapy for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is one condition for which a trade-off exists between the potential risks and benefits of competing therapies, and the need to involve patients in decision making has been clearly identified. This study will evaluate whether an evidence-based patient decision aid for patients with NVAF can improve the appropriateness of antithrombotic therapy use by patients and their family physicians. DESIGN: A multi-center, two-armed cluster randomized trial based in community family practices in which patients with NVAF will be randomized to decision aid or usual care. Patients will receive one of four decision aids depending on their baseline stroke risk. The primary outcome is the provision of "appropriate antithrombotic therapy" at 3 months to study participants (appropriateness defined as per the 2001 American College of Chest Physicians recommendations for NVAF). In addition, the impact of this decision aid on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, well-being, and adherence will be assessed after 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

Family Physicians’ Attitudes and Practices Regarding Assessments of Medical Fitness to Drive in Older Persons

BACKGROUND: Higher crash rates per mile driven in older drivers have focused attention on the assessment of older drivers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the attitudes and practices of family physicians regarding fitness-to-drive issues in older persons. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 1,000 randomly selected Canadian family physicians. Four hundred sixty eligible physicians returned completed questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported attitudes and practices towards driving assessments and the reporting of medically unsafe drivers. RESULTS: Over 45% of physicians are not confident in assessing driving fitness and do not consider themselves to be the most qualified professionals to do so. The majority (88.6%) feel that they would benefit from further education in this area. About 75% feel that reporting a patient as an unsafe driver places them in a conflict of interest and negatively impacts on the patient and the physician–patient relationship. Nevertheless, most (72.4%) agree that physicians should be legally responsible for reporting unsafe drivers to the licensing authorities. Physicians from provinces with mandatory versus discretionary reporting requirements are more likely to report unsafe drivers (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58 to 4.91), but less likely to perform driving assessments (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.85). Most driving assessments take between 10 and 30 minutes, with much variability in the components included. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians lack confidence in performing driving assessments and note many negative consequences of reporting unsafe drivers. Education about assessing driving fitness and approaches that protect the physician–patient relationship when reporting occurs are needed

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.</p

The efficacy of warfarin for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Measuring its minimal clinically important difference from the patients' perspective.

Objectives. (1) To develop a probability trade-off technique (PTOT) for determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of warfarin therapy from the patients' perspective; (2) to estimate the MCID for the efficacy of warfarin to prevent stroke in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) from the perspective of patients with this disease and who have experienced a course of warfarin therapy; (3) to assess two different methods of eliciting the patients' MCID. The two elicitation methods were: (1) ping-ponging (PP), in which the hypothetical efficacy of warfarin to prevent stroke was varied from one extreme to the other until the patients' MCID was determined; and (2) starting at known efficacy (SKE), in which the hypothetical efficacy was started at a midpoint value and then incrementally increased or decreased until the patients' MCID was determined. Conclusions. The MCID for this group of patients was much smaller than the known efficacy of warfarin to prevent stroke in patients with NVAF. The PTOT, using the flipchart approach, was well accepted and appeared to improve their knowledge of their disease, and its consequences and treatment. The method of elicitation used to determine the patients' MCIDs can have a clinically important effect on their responses. (Abstract shortened by UMI.