Trial reportTrials2020
Normalization of a conversation tool to promote shared decision making about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation within a practical randomized trial of its effectiveness: a cross-sectional study.
Trial report in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02905032 (Shared Decision Making for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Shared Decision Making for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (SDM4Afib): A Randomized Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Unmasking the Complex Interplay of Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome, Heart Failure, and Sleep Dysfunction: A Physiological and Psychological Perspective in a Digital Health World.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Transforming Medical Imaging: The Role of Artificial Intelligence Integration in PACS for Enhanced Diagnostic Accuracy and Workflow EfficiencyCurrent medical imaging · 2025Review
- What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Review
- Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Normalization MeAsure Development(NoMAD).BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) implementation remains challenging. The factors that promote or hinder implementation of SDM tools for use during the consultation, including contextual factors such as clinician burnout and organizational support, remain unclear. We explored these factors in the context of a practical multicenter randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of an SDM conversation tool for patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation therapy.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited clinicians who were regularly involved in conversations with patients regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Clinicians reported their characteristics and burnout symptoms using the two-item Maslach Burnout Inventory. Clinicians were trained in using the SDM tool, and they recorded their perceptions of the tool's normalization potential using the Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) survey instrument and verbally reflected on their answers to these survey questions. When possible, the training sessions and clinicians' verbal responses to the conversation tool were recorded.
resultsOur study comprised 183 clinicians recruited into the trial (168 with survey responses and 112 with recordings). Overall, clinicians gave high scores to the normalization potential of the intervention; they endorsed all domains of normalization to the same extent, regardless of site, clinician characteristics, or burnout ratings. In interviews, clinicians paid significant attention to making sense of the tool. Tool buy-in seemed to depend heavily on their ability to see the tool as accurate and "evidence-based" and their perceptions of having time in the consultation to use it.
conclusionsWhile time in the consultation remains a barrier, we did not find a significant association between burnout symptoms and normalization of an SDM conversation tool. Possible areas for improving the normalization of SDM conversation tools in clinical practice include enabling collaboration among clinicians to implement the tool and reporting how clinicians elsewhere use the tool. Direct measures of normalization (i.e., observing how often clinicians access the tool in practice outside of the clinical trial) may further elucidate the role that contextual factors, such as clinician burnout, play in the implementation of SDM.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032. Registered on 9 September 2016.
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.