ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015
Patient values and preferences when choosing anticoagulants.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of Integrated Care on Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- Preferences for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: the patients' view.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2015Trial
- Risk of Hospitalization With Hemorrhage Among Older Adults Taking Clarithromycin vs Azithromycin and Direct Oral Anticoagulants.JAMA internal medicine · 2020Article
- Veterans Perceptions of Satisfaction and Convenience with Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: Warfarin versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Treatment Expectations, Convenience, and Satisfaction with Anticoagulant Treatment: Perceptions of Patients in South-East Queensland, Australia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Patients' Perceptions of Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke Risk, and Oral Anticoagulation Treatment: An International Survey.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2018Article
- Real-life experience of quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adherence in patients receiving oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Factors Affecting Patients' Perception On, and Adherence To, Anticoagulant Therapy: Anticipating the Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.The patient · 2017Review
- Patient preferences regarding atrial fibrillation stroke prophylaxis in patients at potential risk of atrial fibrillation.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2017Article
- Predictive factors for obtaining a correct therapeutic range using antivitamin K anticoagulants: a tertiary center experience of patient adherence to anticoagulant therapy.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Article
- Do EMS Providers Accurately Ascertain Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Use in Older Adults with Head Trauma?Prehospital emergency careArticle
- Family Physician Prescribing Practices and Perspectives on Shared Decision-Making Regarding the Use of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients 75 Years or Older With Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew oral anticoagulants have similar efficacy and lower bleeding rates compared with warfarin. However, in case of bleeding there is no specific antidote to reverse their effects. We evaluated the preferences and values of anticoagulants of patients at risk of atrial fibrillation and those who have already made a decision regarding anticoagulation.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of Veterans in the primary care clinics and the international normalized ratio (INR) laboratory. We developed an instrument with patient and physician input to measure patient values and preferences. The survey contained a hypothetical scenario of the risk of atrial fibrillation and the attributes of each anticoagulant. After the scenario, we asked participants to choose the option that best fits their preferences. The options were: 1) has better efficacy at reducing risk of stroke; 2) has been in the market for a long period of time; 3) has an antidote to reverse the rare case of bleeding; 4) has better quality of life profile with no required frequent laboratory tests; or 5) I want to follow physician recommendations. We stratified our results by those patients who are currently exposed to anticoagulants and those who are not exposed but are at risk of atrial fibrillation.
resultsWe approached 173 Veterans and completed 137 surveys (79% response rate). Ninety subjects were not exposed to anticoagulants, 46 reported being on warfarin, and one reported being on dabigatran at the time of the survey. Ninety-eight percent of subjects stated they would like to participate in the decision-making process of selecting an anticoagulant. Thirty-six percent of those exposed and 37% of those unexposed to anticoagulants reported that they would select a medication that has an antidote even if the risk of bleeding was very small. Twenty-three percent of the unexposed and 22% of the exposed groups reported that they would prefer the medication that gives the best quality of life.
conclusionOur study found that patients who may be exposed to an anticoagulation decision prefer to actively participate in the decision-making process, and have individual values for making a decision that cannot be predicted or assumed by anyone in the health care system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.