Development and trialling of a behavioural intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation initiating oral anticoagulation:the 'treat' study

Purpose: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Stroke risk is commonly treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) with a narrow therapeutic range (INR 2.0 to 3.0); which is poorly controlled in practice. Barriers to adherence include poor knowledge, and inaccurate perceptions surrounding illness and medications. Trial registration: ISRCTN93952605. Systematic review: Seven trials of educational, self-monitoring and decision aid interventions were included in a systematic review. Pooled analysis suggested education OR, 95% CI 7.89 (5.54-10.24) and self monitoring OR (95% CI) 5.47(2.55-8.39) significantly improve TTR; whereas decision aids are no more effective in reducing decision conflict than usual care, OR (95% CI) -0.10 (-0.17 to -0.02). Intervention development: The intervention was theoretically-driven (utilising the common sense and beliefs about medication models) and developed with expert patient feedback. Described using behavioural change techniques, the one-off group session included an educational booklet, ‘expert-patient’ focussed DVD, and worksheet. Methods: Ninety seven warfarin-naïve AF patients were randomised to receive the intervention (n=43), or usual care (n=54). The primary endpoint was time within therapeutic range (TTR), secondary endpoints included knowledge, quality of life (AF-QoL-18), beliefs about medication (BMQ), illness perceptions (IPQ-B), and anxiety and depression (HADS). Results: Intervention group had significantly higher TTR than usual care (78.5% vs. 66.7%; p=0.01). Knowledge changed significantly across time (F (3, 47) = 6.4; p<0.01), but not between groups (F (1, 47) = 3.3; p = 0.07). At six months knowledge predicted TTR (r=0.245; p=0.04). Illness concern negatively correlated with TTR (r= - 0.199; p=0.05). General Harm scores at one month predicted TTR (F (1, 72) = 4.08; p=0.048). There were significant differences in emotional representations (F (3, 49) = 3.3 (3, 49); p= 0.03), anxiety (F (3, 46) = 25.2; p<0.01) and depression (F (3, 46) = 37.7; p