Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aileen Zeng, Queenie Tang, Edel O'Hagan, Kirsten McCaffery, Kiran Ijaz, Juan C. Quiroz, Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Dana Rezazadegan, Ritu Trivedi, Joyce Siette, Timothy Shaw, Meredith Makeham, Aravinda Thiagalingam, Clara K. Chow, Liliana Laranjo

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    1 Citation (Scopus)
    5 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Objectives To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF. Study design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF. Information sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies. Synthesis of results We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge. Results 13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I 2 =26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I 2 =0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery. Conclusions In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020218025.

    Original languageEnglish
    Number of pages12
    JournalBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 22 Jan 2025

    Bibliographical note

    Publisher Copyright:
    © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

    Keywords

    • Cardiovascular Diseases
    • Evidence-Based Practice

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this