Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Patient Decision Aid Regarding Antithrombotic Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Man-Son-Hing, Malcolm·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Decision aids are tools designed to help patients participate in the clinical decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of an audiobooklet (AB) decision aid explaining the results of a clinical trial affected the decision-making process of study participants. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from May 1997 to April 1998. SETTING: Fourteen centers that participated in the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF) III trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 287 patients from the SPAF III aspirin cohort study, in which patients with atrial fibrillation and a relatively low risk of stroke received 325 mg/d of aspirin and were followed up for a mean of 2 years. INTERVENTION: At the end of SPAF III, participants were randomized to be informed of the study results with usual care plus use of an AB (AB group) vs usual care alone (control group). The AB included pertinent information to help patients decide whether to continue taking aspirin or switch to warfarin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' ability to make choices regarding antithrombotic therapy, and 6-month adherence to these decisions. Their knowledge, expectations, decisional conflict (the amount of uncertainty about the course of action to take), and satisfaction with the decision-making process were also measured. RESULTS: More patients in the AB group made a choice about antithrombotic therapy than in the control group (99% vs 94%; P = .02). Patients in the AB group were more knowledgeable and had more realistic expectations about the risk of stroke and hemorrhage (in the AB group, 53%-80% correctly estimated different risks; in the control group, 16%-28% gave correct estimates). Decisional conflict and satisfaction were similar for the 2 groups. After 6 months, a similar percentage of patients were still taking their initial choice of antithrombotic therapy (95% vs 93%; P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation who had participated in a major clinical trial, the use of an AB decision aid improved their understanding of the benefits and risks associated with different treatment options and helped them make definitive choices about which therapy to take. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the acceptability and impact of decision aids in other clinical settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.8.737

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Man-Son-Hing, M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-08-25
Volume
282
Issue
8
Pages
737
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2004217778
Cited by
271
References
0
FWCI
30.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Patient Decision Aid Regarding Antithrombotic Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.8.737
The paper
Man-Son-Hing, M. (1999). A Patient Decision Aid Regarding Antithrombotic Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.8.737

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.