Table 2. Selected patient and clinician-reported outcomesa.
| After AVITA T1 | After encounter T2 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Patient participants | ||
| Immediate evaluation of AVITA tool | ||
| Easy to use | 25/28 (89.29) | |
| Patient recommends tool to others | 24/28 (85.71) | |
| Trustworthy | 27/28 (96.43) | |
| Summary report reflects what matters to the patient | 26/27 (96.30) | |
| Helps patients identify their treatment goals and priorities | 24/27 (88.89) | |
| Helps patients talk to their cardiologist about what matters to them | 25/27 (92.59) | |
| Wanting to be more involved in decisions about treatment | 24/27 (88.89) | |
| Understands they have treatment choices | 26/27 (96.30) | |
| Improved Confidence in Decision-making b , c | ||
| Understand the information enough to be able to make a choice | 25/27 (92.59) | |
| Ask questions without feeling embarrassed | 26/27 (96.30) | |
| Express your concerns about each choice | 27/27 (100.00) | |
| Ask for advice | 27/27 (100.00) | |
| Figure out the treatment choice that best suits you | 27/27 (100.00) | |
| Handle unwanted pressure from others in making your choice | 25/27 (92.59) | |
| Let the clinic team know what’s best for you | 27/27 (100.0) | |
| SDM Processes d | ||
| Clinician explained there were treatment choices | 18/22 (81.82) | |
| …explained pros of TAVRe | 11/22 (50.0) | |
| …explained pros of SAVRe | 8/22 (36.36) | |
| …explained cons of TAVRf | 6/22 (27.27) | |
| …explained cons of SAVRf | 5/22 (22.73) | |
| …asked if patient wanted SAVR or TAVR | 14/22 (63.64) | |
| Total score (range 0–6) | 3.29 (0–5.5) h | |
| Quality of Communication g | ||
| Told patients they have > one option | 16/22 (72.73) | |
| Asked which treatment patient preferred | 14/22 (63.64) | |
| Spent enough time | 18/22 (81.82) | |
| Presented risks and benefits of treatments | 17/22 (77.27) | |
| Encouraged questions | 19/22 (86.36) | |
| Easy to understand | 22/22 (100.00) | |
| Shows courtesy and respect | 21/22 (95.45) | |
| Listens carefully | 21/22 (95.45) | |
| Overall Communication (range 0–10) | 9.41 [1.18] | |
| Patient evaluation of AVITA | ||
| Helped patient talk to clinician about their goals and preferences | 21/22 [95.45] | |
| Helped patient choose treatment for aortic stenosis | 21/22 [95.45] | |
| Clinician-reported outcomes | ||
| Improved knowledge of what’s important to patient | 21/26 (80.77) | |
| Improved ability to engage patient in decision-making | 17/26 (65.38) | |
| Improved communication with patient | 21/26 (80.77) | |
| improved ability to make a recommendation based on what’s important to the patient | 16/26 (61.54) | |
| Influenced clinician recommendation | 16/28 (57.14) | |
| Improved efficiency of the encounter | 12/25 (48.00) | |
| ..No change in efficiency | 12/25 (48.00) | |
| ..Less efficient | 1/25 (4.00) | |
| Clinician would use AVITA in future encounters | 22/26 (84.62) |
AVITA, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches; SAVR, Surgical aortic valve replacement; TAVR, Transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
a Complete table shown in Table S1; longitudinal findings in S2 Table in S1 File.
b The Decision Self-Efficacy scale was used to assess confidence.
c Percent who reported that AVITA changed their confidence a lot or a little.
d % reporting ‘discussed a lot’.
e “explained reasons to have [TAVR/SAVR]”.
f “explained reasons to not want [TAVR/SAVR]”.
g % responding “Yes, definitely”.
h The original 4-item SDM Process scale addressed only one treatment option. Our adapted 6-item scale addressed 2 options. Normalized total score: 54.83; score adjusted to a four-point scale: 2.19.