https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4226-6926
Figures
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the level of patient knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of oral anticoagulation. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis written on the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Searches at MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS electronic databases were carried out on February 13, 2023, using the descriptors "Patient Medication Knowledge", "Patient Education as Topic", "Health Education", "Patient Education" and Warfarin. The steps of selection, data extraction and quality analysis of articles were performed independently by two reviewers. The analysis was performed considering patient knowledge as a possible modifier of time in therapeutic range (TTR). The meta-analysis included studies that reported the correlation coefficient (Pearson or Spearman) between patient knowledge and TTR. A subgroup analysis was performed according to questionnaires employed to measure patient knowledge. Twelve studies were selected with an overall sample size of 7634 participants and mean age 58.2 (standard deviation (SD)±12,8) years. Eleven (92.0%) cross-sectional studies. The mean TTR was 57.8% (SD±11,3%) and the average level of knowledge was 60.4%. The meta-analysis indicated that patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy was moderately associated with TTR (rs = 0.435; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.163–0.645; I2 = 96%). Subgroup analysis indicated association between knowledge level and TTR in studies employing the OAK test (rs = 0.617; 95% CI = 0.192–0.847; I2 = 97%) and the AKA (rs = 0.269; 95% CI = 0.002 to 0.501; I2 = 94%). However, the subgroup analysis presented no significant difference between them (p = 0.14). The meta-regression showed a non-significant negative effect of age on the correlation (estimate = -0.028, 95% CI = -0.073 to 0.016, p = 0.207). No publication bias was noted (p = 0.881). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis gathering evidence about the relationship between the level of patient knowledge on oral anticoagulation with warfarin and TTR. The implementation of structured and patient-centered educational interventions is essential to effectively increase the level of patient knowledge and, thus, to improve the quality and safety of warfarin therapy. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42023398030.
Citation: Praxedes MFdS, Silva JLPd, Cruz AJAd, Viana CC, Barbosa HC, Guimarães NS, et al. (2023) Assessment of the relationship between the level of patient knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of oral anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0289836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289836
Editor: Melissa Orlandin Premaor, Federal University of Minas Gerais, BRAZIL
Received: May 3, 2023; Accepted: July 26, 2023; Published: August 10, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Praxedes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Anticoagulation therapy is recommended for primary and secondary thromboprophylaxis, and can be performed with oral anticoagulants (OACs). Vitamin K inhibitors, such as warfarin, and direct OACs, including direct Factor Xa inhibitors and Factor IIa inhibitors, are currently available in clinical practice. Direct OACs have better dose response predictability and do not require constant laboratory monitoring. However, their safe use has not yet been defined for patients with mechanical heart valves, atrial fibrillation (AF) with rheumatic heart disease and mitral stenosis, renal failure, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Warfarin, therefore, is still widely prescribed worldwide, being the OAC of choice in low- and middle-income countries [1–3].
Despite the benefits of warfarin in clinical practice, it presents narrow therapeutic index, great variability in dose-response, influence of genetic polymorphisms, and interactions with numerous drugs, foods, and alcohol [2,4,5]. Thus, warfarin is among the main drugs associated with adverse events, including accidental deaths.
The adequate management of warfarin therapy becomes very important to prevent patient harm. Treatment monitoring is performed by assessing the international normalized ratio (INR) obtained from the prothrombin time. Sequential INR values can be used to calculate the time in therapeutic range (TTR), a measurement of the quality of oral anticoagulation which correlates with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolism [6]. The method proposed by Rosendaal is the most widely used to determine TTR. It is based on a linear interpolation using at least two INR values with a range from 0% to 100% [7]. Values above 60% define an adequate control, associated with lower risk of warfarin-related adverse events [8].
Patients’ knowledge about oral anticoagulation plays a key role in the prevention of complications, since the risk of bleeding or thromboembolism increases with inappropriate warfarin use [1,9]. The definition of patients´ knowledge comprises the awareness of drug name, indication, dosing regimen, adverse effects or side effects, and special administration instructions [10].
In this sense, assessing the current level of patient knowledge is the first step in planning interventions to improve the quality of oral anticoagulation. Deficiencies in patients´ knowledge can be identified and minimized by offering educational interventions focused on the establishment of a continuous program to improve the quality of oral anticoagulation. Studies have pointed out that patients with a better level of knowledge about warfarin therapy present better quality of oral anticoagulation [9,11,12]. However, this association has not been confirmed by other authors [13,14], demonstrating the lack of consensus in the literature. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of oral anticoagulation.
Materials and methods
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis written on the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline [15] (S1 Checklist). This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023398030.
Inclusion criteria
Observational studies assessing the association between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of oral anticoagulation measured by TTR, calculated by Rosendaal’s method [7], were included. There was no language or location restriction. Duplicate studies, narrative, integrative, overviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews or systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, case series, and experimental animal studies were excluded.
Data sources and search strategy
A search in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS was performed using the descriptors "Patient Medication Knowledge", "Patient Education as Topic", "Health Education", "Patient Education" and Warfarin. The search strategy combined free and indexed terms developed primarily for searching articles in MEDLINE, applying Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms, and adapted to the other databases. Unpublished studies and gray literature were searched through MedNar, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The databases were searched for additional studies with no time limit on publication. The search was conducted on February 13, 2023. A description of the search terms and strategies by database is provided in S1 Appendix.
Study selection
The studies were selected in two steps according to the eligibility criteria using the PRISMA [15] flowchart. Initially, studies were selected by reading titles and abstracts. Then, textual analysis was performed by reading the articles in full. All steps were performed independently by two reviewers (MFSP, AJAC). After the comparison of results, discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer (MAPM) to reach consensus, if necessary.
Quality assessment
Two authors (MFSP, AJAC) independently assessed the risk of bias of selected studies and any differences in results were resolved by consensus. The methodological quality of cohort studies was evaluated as proposed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [16], considering high quality (>8 stars), medium (6–7 stars), or low quality (<6 stars). Cross-sectional studies were evaluated with the Agency for Research and Health Quality (ARHQ) Methodology Checklist for Cross-Sectional/Prevalence Studies, which consists of 11 items with answers such as "yes", "no" or "uncertain". Studies will be rated as "low quality" (<3 answer "yes"), "moderate quality" (4–7 answers "yes") or "high quality" (>8 answers "yes") [17]. Contacting the authors of the articles was considered if the full article or additional data when needed.
Data extraction
Data were extracted from independently selected studies by two reviewers (MFSP, JLPS), included population information, study methods, exposures and outcomes as follows: authors, year, country, study design, sample size, main indications, age, TTR, knowledge test, score for knowledge, knowledge group and main result. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus, or with a third reviewer (MAPM). The authors reviewed the available data and the impact of missing data was considered as a limitation of the study, when applicable.
Data synthesis
The analysis was performed considering that patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy is a possible modifier of TTR. The meta-analysis included studies that reported the correlation coefficient between patient level of knowledge and the TTR. For each study, the correlation coefficient and the sample used were extracted. In all studies, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs) was used to measure association. The mean TTR and the mean level of knowledge were calculated using arithmetic means, according to the available data.
A meta-analysis of correlations was performed to summarize the results. To account for the underlying heterogeneity among the population studies, the random effects models were used. Fisher’s z transformation of correlations was used, as suggested in the literature [18]. Meta-analysis results were back transformed, that is, presented as correlations in text and figures. The between-study variance was estimated via restricted maximum-likelihood method and the inverse variance weighting was used for pooling the correlations. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the questionnaires employed to measure patient knowledge. A meta-regression analysis with age as a continuous covariate was performed to measure the potential influence of age on the correlation.
All model estimates were shown with 95% confidence interval (CI), and Q-statistic I2 and tau-squared statistics were used to assess heterogeneity between studies. Forest plots for all meta-analyses were provided. Publication bias was investigated using the Begg-Mazumdar test. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed in R version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2020) using the meta package.
Results
A total of 2763 records were retrieved after running the initial search. Overall, 12 studies [9,19–29] met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review, being selected for synthesis. A manual search was performed, with no identification of any study meeting the eligibility criteria. The flowchart of the process of selecting studies is depicted in Fig 1.
According to the data provided by the studies and presented in Table 1, five (41.7%) were developed in middle eastern countries, 11 (92.0%) were cross-sectional studies, with a total sample size of 7634 participants and mean age 58.2 (standard deviation (SD)±12.8) years. The arithmetic mean TTR was 57.8% (SD±11.3%). Six (50.0%) studies used the Anticoagulation Knowledge Assessment (AKA) instrument and found a mean knowledge level of 60.4%. According to the methodological quality assessment, all studies showed moderate quality.
The meta-analysis was performed with seven [9,19–21,24,25,27] studies that analyzed the correlation between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy with TTR employing the Spearman’s method. Pooled estimation indicated that patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy was moderately associated with TTR (rs = 0.435; 95% CI = 0.163 to 0.645; I2 = 96%) (Fig 2).
Subgroup analysis indicated association between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and TTR in studies that employed the OAK test (rs = 0.617; 95% CI = 0.192 to 0.847; I2 = 97%) and the AKA (rs = 0.269; 95% CI = 0.002 to 0.501; I2 = 94%). However, the subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between them (p = 0.14) (Fig 3). No asymmetry was noted among the studies (p = 0.8806), suggesting no publication bias.
The meta-regression showed a non-significant negative effect of age on the correlation (estimate = -0.028, 95% CI = -0.073 to 0.016, p = 0.207) (Fig 4). One study [19] was excluded from this analysis because of missing age. The residual heterogeneity decreased from Q = 151.40 to Q = 81.49. The percentage of total variability due to heterogeneity was I2 = 95.18%.
Discussion
The present systematic review and meta-analysis gathered evidence about the evaluation of the relationship between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of warfarin therapy measured by TTR. Among the selected studies, there were different results regarding the relationship between the variables analyzed. Seven [9,19,21–25] studies indicated a significant association between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and TTR, whereas five [20,26–29] studies did not indicate statistical significance.
Such difference may be linked to the difficulty in associating these variables, since both can suffer independent interferences due to patients’ characteristics, such as age, sex, education, income, genetic polymorphisms, diet, concomitantly used medications, health literacy level. Besides, differences related to geographic regions, quality of health services and health education programs should also be considered [2,32–35]. Thus, the heterogeneity indicated by the metanalysis may be closely related to the difficulty of comparison among studies.
The selected studies stratified the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy, presenting levels ≥70–75% related to an adequate level of knowledge, depending on the instrument chose to measure patient knowledge. The overall average level of knowledge found in this study (60.4%). In line with this finding, studies have pointed out that the patients’ knowledge about warfarin therapy is still poor, even when educational interventions are provided [36,37]. This may be related to some factors, such as low health literacy and the complexity of the contents addressed by instruments, which often are not understood or memorized adequately [38]. The educational activities should use clear and accessible language according to the audience, highlighting the therapeutic objective (indication), the process of use (dosing regimen, route of administration, and duration of treatment), safety (adverse events, precautions contraindications and interactions), as well as conservation aspects for the drug [39].
Some selected studies pointed to a knowledge deficit predominantly in topics related to warfarin interactions with drugs, food and alcohol, to adverse events and dosing regimen. Incorrect answers identified by patient knowledge tests allow the identification of potential areas that can be explored by healthcare professionals to improve patient education and evaluate the effectiveness of the current educational activities [20,24]. Variables indicated as related to low patient knowledge were advanced age, low educational level, and less frequent INR monitoring [19,22]. Therefore, the provision of patient-centered interventions with structured and standardized methodology can greatly contribute to raising the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy [40].
The mean TTR identified in this study (57.8%) is below the value recommended by the literature, indicating that the sample studied is exposed to warfarin-related adverse events [41,42]. Patients with TTR >75% have been reported to present significantly lower bleeding and mortality rates compared to TTR <60% [43]. The TTR may suffer influence from the level of knowledge, as pointed out by our analyses. The use of validated tests capable of measuring the current level of knowledge can help stratifying patients and improve the planning and individualization of educational practices according to their needs. Thus, they tend to guarantee an increase in the level of knowledge and, consequently, in the TTR [9,32,33].
Another issue that stands out to the difficulty of associating the level of knowledge with TTR concerns the methodological differences of studies. We found variability in geographic regions, sample size, instruments used to measure the level of patient knowledge, as well as different stratifications for the level of knowledge considered appropriate for a population. Considering these variations, the meta-analysis was performed only with the seven studies [9,19–21,24,25,27] that indicated the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. With the exception of one study [22], all the others used validated instruments (AKA [30] and OAK [31]), in which, by subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference between them. The use of valid instruments is essential to generate reliable and comparable data [44]. In this sense, the analyses in this study become more comparable to each other.
The meta-regression showed a non-significant negative effect of age on the correlation researched. By analysis of the studies included in this review, there are conflicting results. Some studies pointed out a significant association [19,28], while others identified no association [9,25–27,29]. This demonstrates the need for further investigation of such a relationship, with studies designed specifically for this purpose.
In the present study, some limitations stand out. The small number of studies included indicate that potential eligible studies may have been left out of the initial selection, despite the fact that we followed the recommended methodology for systematic reviews in a rigorous manner. To meet the proposed aim and answer the research question, only observational studies were selected, and our results depended on their methodological quality. In the study protocol, the Web of Science database was initially planned to be included. However, the access to this database has been cancelled in our academic institution, possibly restricting our search. Moreover, we should consider the heterogeneity identified by the metanalysis, which may be related to differences inherent to the studies, such as sample size, geographic location, indication of warfarin use, among others. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was performed and the Begg-Mazumdar test did not indicate publication bias.
Conclusion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to gather evidence about the relationship between the patient level of knowledge on warfarin therapy and the quality of oral anticoagulation, expressed by TTR. From the analysis performed, a positive association was observed, in which the higher the level of knowledge, the higher the quality of warfarin therapy. This result can serve as a basis for healthcare professionals and public policy managers to reinforce the importance of structured and patient-centered educational interventions that effectively promote an increase in the level of knowledge of patients, thus ensuring better quality and safety of warfarin therapy.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Terms and search strategies by database.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289836.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (PRPq-UFMG); Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES); Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).
References
- 1. De Caterina R, Ageno W, Agnelli G, Chan NC, Diener HC, Hylek E, et al. The Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Heart Disease: Section V-Special Situations. Thrombosis and haemostasis. 2019;119(1):14–38. pmid:30597497
- 2. Praxedes MFS, Martins MAP, Mourão AOM, Gomes KB, Reis EA, Souza RP, et al. Non-genetic factors and polymorphisms in genes CYP2C9 and VKORC1: predictive algorithms for TTR in Brazilian patients on warfarin. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2020;76(2):199–209. pmid:31720756
- 3. Vianna MS, da Silva Praxedes MF, de Araújo VE, Ferreira CB, de Sousa WJFN, Viana CC, et al. Self-report instruments for assessing adherence to warfarin therapy: a systematic review. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2021;77(12):1765–81. pmid:34292359
- 4. Park YK, Lee MJ, Kim JH, Lee JS, Park RW, Kim GM, et al. Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors Affecting the Quality of Anticoagulation Control and Vascular Events in Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases: the official journal of National Stroke Association. 2017;26(6):1383–90. pmid:28412319
- 5. Roth JA, Bradley K, Thummel KE, Veenstra DL, Boudreau D. Alcohol misuse, genetics, and major bleeding among warfarin therapy patients in a community setting. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. 2015;24(6):619–27. pmid:25858232
- 6. de Lima Silva RG, Bertollo CM, Ferreira IG, Brant LC, Martins MAP. Assessment of oral anticoagulation control at two pharmacist-managed clinics in Brazil. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2017;39(6):1157–61. pmid:28932938
- 7. Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJ, Briët E. A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thrombosis and haemostasis. 1993;69(3):236–9. pmid:8470047
- 8. Gallego P, Roldán V, Marin F, Gálvez J, Valdés M, Vicente V, et al. SAMe-TT2R2 score, time in therapeutic range, and outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. The American journal of medicine. 2014;127(11):1083–8. pmid:24858062
- 9. Praxedes MF, de Abreu MH, Paiva SM, Mambrini JV, Marcolino MS, Martins MA. Assessment of psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the oral anticoagulation knowledge test. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2016;14:96. pmid:27342960
- 10. Najjar A, Amro Y, Kitaneh I, Abu-Sharar S, Sawalha M, Jamous A, et al. Knowledge and Adherence to Medications among Palestinian Geriatrics Living with Chronic Diseases in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129240. pmid:26046771
- 11. Praxedes MFDS, Mambrini JVDM, Reis AMM, de Abreu MHNG, Martins MAP. Assessment of patient knowledge on warfarin: An item response theory approach. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2020;45(4):698–706. pmid:32339322
- 12. Obamiro KO, Chalmers L, Lee K, Bereznicki BJ, Bereznicki LRE. Anticoagulation knowledge in patients with atrial fibrillation: An Australian survey. International journal of clinical practice. 2018;72(3):e13072. pmid:29457323
- 13. Nybo MS, Skov J. Patient knowledge of anticoagulant treatment does not correlate with treatment quality. Public health. 2016;141:17–22. pmid:27931994
- 14. Altıok M, Kuyurtar F, Babalıklı F, Erdoğan S. Knowledge and adherence to treatment in patients with poor or improved anticoagulation control. Anadolu kardiyoloji dergisi: AKD = the Anatolian journal of cardiology. 2012;12(8):703. pmid:22989809
- 15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021;134:178–89. pmid:33789819
- 16. Wells G SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2011.
- 17.
Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters M, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
- 18. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019.
- 19. Ahmed H, Saddouh EA, Abugrin ME, Ali AMM, Elgdhafi EO, Khaled A, et al. Association between Patients’ Knowledge and Adherence to Anticoagulants, and Its Effect on Coagulation Control. Pharmacology. 2021;106(5–6):265–74. pmid:33202413
- 20. Baker JW, Pierce KL, Ryals CA. INR goal attainment and oral anticoagulation knowledge of patients enrolled in an anticoagulation clinic in a Veterans Affairs medical center. Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP. 2011;17(2):133–42. pmid:21348546
- 21. Cao H, Wu T, Chen W, Fu J, Xia X, Zhang J. The effect of warfarin knowledge on anticoagulation control among patients with heart valve replacement. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2020;42(3):861–70. pmid:32410208
- 22. Çelik A, İzci S, Kobat MA, Ateş AH, Çakmak A, Çakıllı Y, et al. The awareness, efficacy, safety, and time in therapeutic range of warfarin in the Turkish population: WARFARIN-TR. Anatolian journal of cardiology. 2016;16(8):595–600. pmid:27004711
- 23. Feldeisen D, Alexandris-Souphis C, Haymart B, Gu X, Perry L, Watts S, et al. Higher OAK (Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge) score at baseline associated with better TTR (Time in Therapeutic Range) in patients taking warfarin. Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis. 2023;55(1):141–8. pmid:36326967
- 24. Li X, Sun S, Wang Q, Chen B, Zhao Z, Xu X. Assessment of patients’ warfarin knowledge and anticoagulation control at a joint physician- and pharmacist-managed clinic in China. Patient preference and adherence. 2018;12:783–91. pmid:29785093
- 25. Matalqah LM, Radaideh K, Sulaiman SAS, Hassali MA, Kader MASA. An instrument to measure anticoagulation knowledge among Malaysian community: A translation and validation study of the Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) Test. Asian Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2013;3(20):30–7.
- 26. Mayet AY. Association between Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge, Anticoagulation Control, and Demographic Characteristics of Patients Attending an Anticoagulation Clinic in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Prospective Evaluation. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 2015;14 (7):1285–91.
- 27. Shilbayeh SAR, Almutairi WA, Alyahya SA, Alshammari NH, Shaheen E, Adam A. Validation of knowledge and adherence assessment tools among patients on warfarin therapy in a Saudi hospital anticoagulant clinic. International journal of clinical pharmacy. 2018;40(1):56–66. pmid:29189976
- 28. Türker M, Sancar M, Demirtunç R, Uçar N, Uzman O, Ay P, et al. Validation of a Knowledge Test in Turkish Patients on Warfarin Therapy at an Ambulatory Anticoagulation Clinic. Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 2021;18(4):445–51. pmid:34496551
- 29. Zangenehfar ME, Harirforoosh I, Mohebbi B, Khajali Z. Assessment of Anticoagulation Control Association with Warfarin Knowledge and Demographic Features of Iranian Population. 2021;12(2):e112369.
- 30. Briggs AL, Jackson TR, Bruce S, Shapiro NL. The development and performance validation of a tool to assess patient anticoagulation knowledge. Research in social & administrative pharmacy: RSAP. 2005;1(1):40–59. pmid:17138465
- 31. Zeolla MM, Brodeur MR, Dominelli A, Haines ST, Allie ND. Development and validation of an instrument to determine patient knowledge: the oral anticoagulation knowledge test. The Annals of pharmacotherapy. 2006;40(4):633–8. pmid:16551766
- 32. Henderson JB, Iyer P, Coniglio AC, Katz JN, Chien C, Hollis IB. Predictors of Warfarin Time in Therapeutic Range after Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(10):1030–5. pmid:31463945
- 33. Apostolakis S, Sullivan RM, Olshansky B, Lip GYH. Factors affecting quality of anticoagulation control among patients with atrial fibrillation on warfarin: the SAMe-TT₂R₂ score. Chest. 2013;144(5):1555–63.
- 34. Costa Viana C, da Silva Praxedes MF, Freitas Nunes de Sousa WJ, Bartolazzi F, Sousa Vianna M, Padilha da Silva JL, et al. Sex-influence on the time in therapeutic range (TTR) during oral anticoagulation with coumarin derivatives: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2021;87(12):4488–503. pmid:33973668
- 35. Rodriguez F, Hong C, Chang Y, Oertel LB, Singer DE, Green AR, et al. Limited English proficient patients and time spent in therapeutic range in a warfarin anticoagulation clinic. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2013;2(4):e000170. pmid:23832325
- 36. Nasser S, Mullan J, Bajorek B. Challenges of older patients’ knowledge about warfarin therapy. Journal of primary care & community health. 2012;3(1):65–74. pmid:23804857
- 37. Clarkesmith DE, Pattison HM, Khaing PH, Lane DA. Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;4(4):Cd008600. pmid:28378924
- 38. Martins MAP, Costa JM, Mambrini JVM, Ribeiro ALP, Benjamin EJ, Brant LCC, et al. Health literacy and warfarin therapy at two anticoagulation clinics in Brazil. Heart. 2017;103(14):1089–95. pmid:28258243
- 39. García Delgado P, Gastelurrutia Garralda MÁ, Baena Parejo MI, Fisac Lozano F, Martínez Martínez F. Validación de un cuestionario para medir el conocimiento de los pacientes sobre sus medicamentos. Atención Primaria. 2009;41(12):661–8.
- 40. Lin SY, Chen YW, Kang HC, Wu YJ, Chen PZ, Wu CW, et al. Effects of a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation outpatient clinic in Taiwan: evaluation of patient knowledge, satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. Postgraduate medicine. 2021;133(8):964–73. pmid:34180349
- 41. Ageno W, Gallus AS, Wittkowsky A, Crowther M, Hylek EM, Palareti G. Oral anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e44S–e88S. pmid:22315269
- 42. Hong KS, Kim YK, Bae HJ, Nam HS, Kwon SU, Bang OY, et al. Quality of Anticoagulation with Warfarin in Korean Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Stroke: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study. Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea). 2017;13(3):273–80. pmid:28748679
- 43. White HD, Gruber M, Feyzi J, Kaatz S, Tse HF, Husted S, et al. Comparison of outcomes among patients randomized to warfarin therapy according to anticoagulant control: results from SPORTIF III and V. Archives of internal medicine. 2007;167(3):239–45. pmid:17296878
- 44. Praxedes M, Abreu M, Ribeiro DD, Marcolino MS, Paiva SM, Martins MAP. Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge Test to the Brazilian Portuguese. Ciencia & saude coletiva. 2017;22(5):1615–29.