Comparing the Efficacy of Targeted and Blast Portal Messaging in Message Opening Rate and Anticoagulation Initiation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in the Preventing Preventable Strokes Study II: Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Background The gap in anticoagulation use among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major public health threat. Inadequate patient education contributes to this gap. Patient portal–based messaging linked to educational materials may help bridge this gap, but the most effective messaging approach is unknown. Objective This study aims to compare the responsiveness of patients with AF to an AF or anticoagulation educational message between 2 portal messaging approaches: sending messages targeted at patients with upcoming outpatient appointments 1 week before their scheduled appointment (targeted) versus sending messages to all eligible patients in 1 blast, regardless of appointment scheduling status (blast), at 2 different health systems: the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass) and the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville (UFL). Methods Using the 2 approaches, we sent patient portal messages to patients with AF and grouped patients by high-risk patients on anticoagulation (group 1), high-risk patients off anticoagulation (group 2), and low-risk patients who may become eligible for anticoagulation in the future (group 3). Risk was classified based on the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke, vascular disease, age between 65 and 74 years, and sex category (CHA2DS2-VASc) score. The messages contained a link to the Upbeat website of the Heart Rhythm Society, which displays print and video materials about AF and anticoagulation. We then tracked message opening, review of the website, anticoagulation use, and administered patient surveys across messaging approaches and sites using Epic Systems (Epic Systems Corporation) electronic health record data and Google website traffic analytics. We then conducted chi-square tests to compare potential differences in the proportion of patients opening messages and other evaluation metrics, adjusting for potential confounders. All statistical analyses were performed in SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). Results We sent 1686 targeted messages and 1450 blast messages. Message opening was significantly higher with the targeted approach for patients on anticoagulation (723/1156, 62.5% vs 382/668, 57.2%; P=.005) and trended the same in patients off anticoagulation; subsequent website reviews did not differ by messaging approach. More patients off anticoagulation at baseline started anticoagulation with the targeted approach than the blast approach (adjusted percentage 9.3% vs 2.1%; P<.001). Conclusions Patients were more responsive in terms of message opening and subsequent anticoagulation initiation with the targeted approach.