Satisfaction With Oral Anticoagulants Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with treatment has been identified as an important contributing factor to adherence with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to evaluate the satisfaction level of patients with AF regarding OAC use over time, using validated patient-reported outcome instruments, and to identify associated patient characteristics. METHODS: Participants were recruited from specialized AF clinics in Canada. Eligible AF patients who were prescribed OACs were followed for up to 2 years. Participants were interviewed via telephone every 3-4 months using a structured survey. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM II) and the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) were used to measure satisfaction over time. RESULTS: Among the 306 participants, satisfaction scores on the TSQM II and ACTS instruments were high. Unadjusted analyses showed significantly greater satisfaction with the burden of therapy with direct OACs (DOACs) compared to that with warfarin (small-magnitude effect) and greater satisfaction with the convenience of rivaroxaban, compared with that of all other OACs (moderate-magnitude effect). After adjustment for all other variables, vitamin K antagonist therapy was associated with greater global satisfaction than was DOAC treatment. Satisfaction with benefit and burden as measured by the ACTS scale, and global satisfaction on the TSQM II scale, tended to increase over time. Patient factors that were somewhat consistently associated with greater satisfaction were female sex and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF were highly satisfied with their therapy, with few differences among OAC classes and individual OACs. Individual patients may or may not be more satisfied with DOAC than VKA therapy, and regardless of the OAC prescribed, the may require significant support to maintain therapy adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".