Table 1

Characteristics of included articles

Study
(authors, year, country)
Study design and sample sizePopulation characteristics: mean age; % womenSettingType of tool*
(treatment decision-support options)
ComparatorPrimary outcome
  1. Kunneman et al, 2020, USA25

  2. Noseworthy et al, 2022, USA26

  3. Kamath et al, 2021, USA27

  1. RCT (2 arms) Intervention:463 Control:459

  2. 10-month follow-up of Kunneman 2020 RCT (88% of original sample)

  3. Secondary analysis25

71 years; 20% womenPrimary and secondary care (in emergency and inpatient hospital departments and outpatient safety-net, primary care and cardiology clinics)Educational
Web application†
(Warfarin vs DOAC vs no anticoagulant medication)
Usual care1.Quality of shared decision-making (composite outcome, measured immediately postvisit): communication quality, knowledge transfer to patient, concordance between clinician and patient’s agreed treatment plan, Decisional Conflict Scale.
2.Anticoagulation start and continuation rates
3.Conversations about cost
Wang et al, 2022, USA28RCT (2 arm)
Intervention: 495
Control: 506
69 years; 40% womenPrimary and secondary care Clinicians received training.Educational
Web application‡
(No antithrombotic treatment Warfarin vs DOAC vs aspirin or other antiplatelet)
Usual careDecisional Conflict Scale (1-month post-visit)
Guo et al, 2017, China29Cluster RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: 113
Control: 96
69 years; 44% womenSelf-utilised by patient at homeEducational
Mobile application
(No antithrombotic treatment vs warfarin vs DOAC)
Usual careNot specified: Patients’ knowledge, quality of life, drug adherence and anticoagulation satisfaction
Fraenkel et al, 2012, USA30RCT
(2 arms)
Intervention: 69
Control: 66
NR (majority over 75 years); 1.5% women;Primary carePtDA§
Computer-based tool
(no antithrombotic treatment vs aspirin vs warfarin)
Usual careDecisional Conflict Scale (subscales: ‘Feeling informed’ and ‘Having clear values’; immediately post-visit)
Thomson et al, 2007, England31RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: 53
Control: 56
73.4 years; 44% womenPrimary carePtDA
computer-based tool
(warfarin vs no warfarin)
Usual careDecisional Conflict Scale (measured immediately post-visit)
de Castro et al, 2021, Philippines 32Quasi-experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 67
61 years; 10% womenSecondary care (hospital clinics)PtDA§
Mobile application
(Aspirin, warfarin, apixaban,
rivaroxaban, dabigatran)
Pre–postNot specified: Decisional Conflict Scale, knowledge
Kovoor et al, 2021, Australia33Quasi- experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 116
NRSecondary care (cardiology outpatient– waiting room)Educational
Web application
(unspecified medication options, lifestyle modifications)
None (post-intervention measures only)Patient-perceived utility in improving patient decision-making
Kapoor et al, 2021, USA34Quasi-experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 37
(NR) 46% over 75 years; 38% 65–74 years; 30% womenSelf-utilised at home by patient or at waiting room (cardiology outpatient)Educational
Mobile application¶
(Unspecified anticoagulation options)
Pre–postNot specified: app usability; perceived usefulness
Loewen et al, 2019, Canada35Quasi-experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 37
71 years; 57% womenSelf-utilised at home by patientPtDA§
Web application
(No antithrombotic treatment vs aspirin vs Warfarin vs DOAC (ie, (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban))
Pre–postDecisional Conflict Scale
Eckman et al, 2018, USA36Quasi-experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 65
65.7 years; 35% womenPrimary careEducational
Web application**
(No antithrombotic therapy vs aspirin vs warfarin vs DOAC: dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban)
Pre–postDecisional Conflict Scale
Stephan et al, 2018, Brazil37Quasi-experimental
(1 arm)
Intervention: 20
67.7 years; 60% womenSecondary care (cardiology outpatient—waiting roomEducational
Mobile application
(No antithrombotic therapy vs aspirin+clopidogrel vs warfarin vs DOAC)
Pre–postAF knowledge††