TY - JOUR
T1 - Encounter-based randomization did not result in contamination in a shared decision-making trial
T2 - a secondary analysis
AU - Shared Decision Making for Atrial Fibrillation (SDM4AFib) Trial Investigators
AU - Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela
AU - Branda, Megan E.
AU - Kunneman, Marleen
AU - Bellolio, Fernanda
AU - Burnett, Bruce
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Montori, Victor M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Objectives: To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Study Design and Setting: We assessed contamination at three levels: (1) tool contamination (whether the tool was physically present in the usual care encounter), (2) functional contamination (whether components of the SDM tool were recreated in the usual care encounters without directly accessing the tool), and (3) learned contamination (whether clinicians “got better at SDM” in the usual care encounters as assessed by the OPTION-12 score). For functional and learned contamination, the interaction with the number of exposures to the tool was assessed. Results: We recorded and analyzed 830 of 922 randomized encounters. Of the 411 recorded encounters randomized to usual care, the SDM tool was used in nine (2.2%) encounters. Clinicians discussed at least one patient-important issue in 377 usual care encounters (92%) and the risk of stroke in 214 encounters (52%). We found no significant interaction between number of times the SDM tool was used and subsequent functional or learned contamination. Conclusion: Despite randomly assigning clinicians to use an SDM tool in some and not other encounters, we found no evidence of contamination in usual care encounters.
AB - Objectives: To estimate the level of contamination in an encounter-randomized trial evaluating a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Study Design and Setting: We assessed contamination at three levels: (1) tool contamination (whether the tool was physically present in the usual care encounter), (2) functional contamination (whether components of the SDM tool were recreated in the usual care encounters without directly accessing the tool), and (3) learned contamination (whether clinicians “got better at SDM” in the usual care encounters as assessed by the OPTION-12 score). For functional and learned contamination, the interaction with the number of exposures to the tool was assessed. Results: We recorded and analyzed 830 of 922 randomized encounters. Of the 411 recorded encounters randomized to usual care, the SDM tool was used in nine (2.2%) encounters. Clinicians discussed at least one patient-important issue in 377 usual care encounters (92%) and the risk of stroke in 214 encounters (52%). We found no significant interaction between number of times the SDM tool was used and subsequent functional or learned contamination. Conclusion: Despite randomly assigning clinicians to use an SDM tool in some and not other encounters, we found no evidence of contamination in usual care encounters.
KW - Atrial fibrillation
KW - Complex health interventions
KW - Contamination
KW - Decision aid
KW - Randomized trials
KW - Shared decision-making
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142184456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85142184456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.017
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.017
M3 - Article
C2 - 36220625
AN - SCOPUS:85142184456
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 152
SP - 185
EP - 192
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -