Training doctors briefly and in situ to involve their patients in making medical decisions-Preliminary testing of a newly developed module

Shared decision making in sarcopenia treatment

The implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in management of sarcopenia is still in its nascent stage, especially compared to other areas of medical research. Accumulating evidence has highlighted the importance of SDM in older adults care. The current study overviews general SDM practices and explores the potential advantages and dilemmas of incorporating these concepts into sarcopenia management. We present common patient decision aids available for sarcopenia management and propose future research directions. SDM can be effectively integrated into daily practice with the aid of structured techniques, such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" approach, "making good decisions in collaboration" questions, "benefits, risks, alternatives, doing nothing" tool, or "multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making." Such techniques fully consider patient values and preferences, thereby enhancing adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention measures. Additionally, we review the barriers to and potential solutions to SDM implementation. Further studies are required to investigate measurement and outcomes, coordination and cooperation, and digital technology, such as remote SDM. The study concludes that sarcopenia management must go beyond the single dimension of "Paternalism" choice. Integrating SDM into clinical practice offers promising opportunities to improve patient care, with patient-centered care and partnership of care approaches positively impacting treatment outcomes.

Inclusion of person-centred care in UK postgraduate medical education curricula: Interviews and documentary analysis

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care (PCC) involves placing people at the centre of their healthcare decision making to ensure it meets their needs, values, and personal circumstances. Increasingly, PCC is promoted in healthcare policy and guidance, but little is known about how this is embedded in postgraduate medical training. The aim of this research was to understand how PCC is embedded in UK postgraduate medical training and explore factors influencing inclusion of PCC in curricula content.

METHODS

To explore this, we interviewed senior professionals with key roles in the curricula from four UK Royal Colleges (Psychiatrists; Physicians; Surgeons; and GPs) and used framework analysis on interviews and relevant curricula documents to identify themes.

RESULTS

Legislation and professional/educational guidance influenced inclusion. PCC definitions and terminology differed and placement within curricula was variable. Royal Colleges defined the curriculum and provided training to ensure competence, but local deaneries independently implemented the curriculum. Trainer engagement was greater than trainee buy in. Quality assurance focused on feedback from trainers and trainees rather than patients, and patient and public involvement in curriculum development, teaching, and assessment was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for cross-organisation collaboration to develop a PCC competence framework that defines the skills and level of competence required at different points in training, with clarity around the differences between undergraduate and postgraduate requirements. Greater auditing and quality assurance of programme delivery would help identify successful practices to share within and across Royal Colleges, while still maintaining the flexibility of local provision. Engagement with patients and the public in this work can only strengthen provision.

Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine symptoms vary significantly between patients and within the same patient. Currently, an increasing number of therapeutic options are available for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Guidelines encourage physicians to use shared decision-making (SDM) in their practice, listening to patients' treatment preferences in order to select the most suitable and effective therapy. Although training for healthcare professionals could increase their awareness of SDM, results concerning its effectiveness are inconclusive. This study aimed to analyze the impact of a training activity to promote SDM in the context of migraine care. This was addressed by evaluating the impact on patients' decisional conflict (main objective), patient-physician relationship, neurologists' perceptions of the training and patient's perception of SDM.

METHODS

A multicenter observational study was conducted in four highly specialized headache units. The participating neurologists received SDM training targeting people with migraine in clinical practice to provide techniques and tools to optimize physician-patient interactions and encourage patient involvement in SDM. The study was set up in three consecutive phases: control phase, in which neurologists were blind to the training activity and performed the consultation with the control group under routine clinical practice; training phase, when the same neurologists participated in the SDM training; and SDM phase, in which these neurologists performed the consultation with the intervention group after the training. Patients in both groups with a change of treatment assessment during the visit completed the Decisional conflict scale (DCS) after the consultation to measure the patient's decisional conflict. Also, patients answered the patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (CREM-P) and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The mean ± SD scores obtained from the study questionnaires were calculated for both groups and compared to determine whether there were significant differences (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 180 migraine patients (86.7% female, mean age of 38.5 ± 12.3 years) were included, of which 128 required a migraine treatment change assessment during the consultation (control group, n = 68; intervention group, n = 60). A low decisional conflict was found without significant differences between the intervention (25.6 ± 23.4) and control group (22.1 ± 17.9; p = 0.5597). No significant differences in the CREM-P and SDM-Q-9 scores were observed between groups. Physicians were satisfied with the training and showed greater agreement with the clarity, quality and selection of the contents. Moreover, physicians felt confident communicating with patients after the training, and they applied the techniques and SDM strategies learned.

CONCLUSION

SDM is a model currently being actively used in clinical practice for headache consultation, with high patient involvement in the process. This SDM training, while useful from the physician's perspective, may be more effective at other levels of care where there is still room for optimization of patient involvement in decision-making.

Teaching strategies for shared decision-making within the context of evidence-based healthcare practice: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP education programmes for healthcare learners.

METHODS

A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) used to guide reporting.

RESULTS

The narrative overview of 23 studies provides insight into the 'what' and 'how' of teaching SDM within the context of EBP education. A minority of studies explicitly and concurrently incorporated EBP and SDM in terms of how programme content was organised. Teaching strategies most often used regardless of learner cohort or setting included didactic, face-to-face lectures, together with role-play/modelling, small group workshops and video recordings. Programme evaluation outcomes predominantly focused on participant reactions to training and participant learning.

CONCLUSION

While a disconnect between EBP and SDM remains evident in healthcare programmes, increased recognition by educators to actively facilitate this interdependent relationship is emerging.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Intentionally structuring learning activities in a manner which demonstrates the relevance and interdependence of SDM and EBP may mitigate 'learning silos' and enhance learners' abilities to make connections required in practice.

Comprehensive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in a Neuromedical Center Using the SHARE TO CARE Program

PURPOSE

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive, multi-module implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is currently applied at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and among general practitioners at the Federal State of Bremen. This study examines the results of the full implementation of S2C in terms of effectiveness within the Kiel Neuromedical Center comprising the departments of neurology and neurosurgery.

METHOD AND DESIGN

The S2C program consists of four combined intervention modules: 1) multimodal training of physicians; 2) a patient activation campaign including the ASK-3 method; 3) digital evidence-based patient decision aids; and 4) SDM support by nurses, e.g., as decision coaches. The SDM level before and immediately after implementation was retrospectively assessed in consecutively selected patients on the subscale "Patient Decision Making" of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS_PDM). Mean scores were compared with t-tests.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of all physicians (N = 56) completed the SDM training. We developed a total of 12 evidence-based digital decision aids in the center, educated two decision coaches to support patients' decision processes by using decision aids. Physicians adjusted patients' pathways to incorporate the use of decision aids. Patients (n = 261) reported a significant increase in participation (p<0.001; Hedges' g = 0.49) in medical decision making.

CONCLUSION

The S2C program has been successfully implemented within the entire Neuromedical Center. Patients reported a medium to small increase of perceived involvement in decision making demonstrating the effectiveness of the implementation. For future research, it might be interesting to investigate the sustainability of the effects of S2C. In addition, it seems useful to complement the patient-based evaluation with observer-based data.

Ready for SDM- evaluation of an interprofessional training module in shared decision making - A cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Ready for SDM was developed in Norway as a comprehensive modularized curriculum for health care providers (HCP). The current study evaluated the efficacy of one of the modules, a 2-hour interprofessional SDM training designed to enhance SDM competencies.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted with eight District Psychiatric Centres randomized to wait-list control (CG) or intervention group (IG). Participants and trainers were not blinded to their allocation. The IG received a 2-hour didactic and interactive training, using video examples. The primary outcome was the agreement between the participants' and an expert assessment of patient involvement in a video recorded consultation. The SDM-knowledge score was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Compared to the CG (n = 65), the IG (n = 69) judged involvement behavior in a communication example more accurately (mean difference of weighted T, adjusted for age and gender:=-0.098, p = 0.028) and demonstrated better knowledge (mean difference=-0.58; p = 0.014). A sensitivity analysis entering a random effect for cluster turned out not significant.

CONCLUSION

The interprofessional group training can improve HCPs' SDM-competencies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Addressing interprofessional teams using SDM communication training could supplement existing SDM training approaches. More research is needed to evaluate the training module's effects as a component of large-scale implementation of SDM.

Training physicians in providing complex information to patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a specific communication training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about treatment options to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

DESIGN

Single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One university hospital in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four patients with early-stage MS.

INTERVENTION

A 3-hour training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about MS escalation therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient recall rate, measured with a reliable counting system of provided and recalled information about drugs.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of information units provided by the physicians. Effects on patient involvement through questionnaires.

METHODS

Patients with MS were instructed to imagine a disease development and were randomised and blinded to meet a physician to receive information on escalation therapy, before or after the physician had participated in a 3-hour training on how to provide complex information. Consultations and immediate patient recall interviews were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

RESULTS

Patient recall rate was 0.37 (SD=0.10) pre-intervention and 0.39 (SD=0.10) post-intervention. The effect of the intervention on recall rate predicted with a general linear model covariate was not significant (coefficient parameter 0.07 (SE 0.04, 95% CI (-0.01 to 0.15)), p=0.099).The physicians tended to provide significantly fewer information units after the training, with an average of 91.0 (SD=30.3) pre-intervention and 76.5 (SD=17.4) post-intervention; coefficient parameter -0.09 (SE 0.02, 95% CI (-0.13 to -0.05)), p<0.001. There was a significant negative association between the amount of provided information and the recall rate (coefficient parameter -0.29 (SE 0.05, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.18)), p<0.001). We found no significant effects on patient involvement using the Control Preference Scale, Collaborate or Four Habits Patient Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

A brief course for physicians on providing complex information reduced the amount of information provided, but did not improve patient recall rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN42739508.

The effect of a scalable online training module for shared decision making based on flawed video examples - a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is considered the gold standard of medical decision making as it provides a method to systematically integrate the patient's preferences, evidence-based medicine and the experience of health care professionals. Therefore, evidence-based training methods for a broad implementation into healthcare are needed. A new online training was designed, based on the concept of flawed/flawless video examples and additional educational concepts.

METHODS

In a single-blind randomized-controlled trial, medical students were randomly assigned to intervention group receiving the online training (n = 82) or waiting control group (n = 105). SDM-related knowledge and the ability to judge distinct levels of SDM were compared between both groups. Additionally, feedback regarding the intervention was collected.

RESULTS

SDM-related knowledge and judging ability increased significantly in the intervention group compared to controls (SDM knowledge: mean difference: 12 %; 95 % CI: 7.3-18.5; p < 0.001; SDM judging ability (inter-rater concordance displayed by weighted t): mean difference: 0.07; 95 %CI: 0.03-0.11; p = 0.001). Feedback was positive.

CONCLUSION

The online training with its distinctive methodology prove effective. As it shares the theoretical and didactical background with an already existing face-to-face training, both approaches may also be used complementarily.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM can be trained effectively and efficiently with this easily scalable online training.

The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN'SDM

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN'SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN'SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used.

METHODS

This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN'SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN'SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN'SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN'SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date.

CONCLUSION

The MAPPIN'SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

Ready for SDM: evaluating a train-the-trainer program to facilitate implementation of SDM training in Norway

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers need training to implement shared decision making (SDM). In Norway, we developed "Ready for SDM", a comprehensive SDM curriculum tailored to various healthcare providers, settings, and competence levels, including a course targeting interprofessional healthcare teams. The overall aim was to evaluate a train-the-trainer (TTT) program for healthcare providers wanting to offer this course within their hospital trust.

METHODS

Our observational descriptive design was informed by Kirkpatrick´s Model of Educational Outcomes. The South-Eastern Regional Health Authority invited healthcare providers from all health trusts in its jurisdiction to attend. The TTT consisted of a one-day basic course with lectures on SDM, exercises and group reflections followed by a two-day advanced course including an SDM observer training. Immediately after each of the two courses, reaction and learning (Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2) were assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. After the advanced course, observer skills were operationalized as accuracy of the participants' assessment of a consultation compared to an expert assessment. Within three months post-training, we measured number of trainings conducted and number of healthcare providers trained (Kirkpatrick level 3) using an online survey. Qualitative and quantitative descriptive analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one out of 24 (basic) and 19 out of 22 (advanced) healthcare providers in 9 health trusts consented to participate. The basic course was evaluated as highly acceptable, the advanced course as complex and challenging. Participants identified a need for more training in pedagogical skills and support for planning implementation of SDM-training. Participants achieved high knowledge scores and were positive about being an SDM trainer. Observer skills regarding patient involvement in decision-making were excellent (mean of weighted t = .80). After three months, 67% of TTT participants had conducted more than two trainings each and trained a total of 458 healthcare providers.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that the TTT is a feasible approach for supporting large-scale training in SDM. Our study informed us about how to improve the advanced course. Further research shall investigate the efficacy of the training in the context of a comprehensive multifaceted strategy for implementing SDM in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered at ISRCTN (99432465) March 25, 2020.

Autism-Focused Online Training in Shared Decision-Making: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

This medical education quasi-randomized controlled trial (quasi-RCT), involving 97 developmental-behavioral pediatrics fellows across the United States, examined differential effects of 2 autism-focused, online, interactive case-based trainings on shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

An intervention case provided direct teaching about SDM, addressing autism treatment options. A comparison case focused on evidence-based practice (EBP) related to medication use in autism with no specific SDM teaching. Measured outcomes included self-reported SDM and attitudes toward concordance in medication-prescribing.

RESULTS

After the intervention, both groups showed significantly increased SDM, but not medication-prescribing concordance (controlling for trainee level, autism patient numbers, and past SDM training).

CONCLUSION

This quasi-RCT presents evidence that knowledge of SDM in care of children with autism can be enhanced by online case-based training focused either indirectly on evidence-based practice or directly on SDM. Consistent online SDM training can be provided to all trainees, irrespective of the location.

Patient autonomy in dentistry: demonstrating the role for shared decision making

Background

Evidence-based practice, decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in making decisions with the patient. They are crucial in the process of a shared decision making (SDM) and can be incorporated into quality criteria for patient involvement in health care. However, there are few studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study explored patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains, comparing them with patient preferences in two other cohorts of patients with different conditions and in different health care settings.

Methods

A sample of 100 dental patients attending 16 dentists was consecutively recruited in a university-based prosthodontic clinic. Patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions were compared using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by cross sectional surveys to study autonomy preferences in three additional cohorts recruited from general practices (n = 100), a multiple sclerosis clinic (n = 109), and a university-based prosthodontic clinic (n = 100). A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in the additional cohorts.

Results

Dentists were less willing to give patients control than patients were willing to enact autonomy. However, decisions about management of tooth loss were considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. When comparing cohorts from different samples, the highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis and the lowest by patients in dentistry (means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p = .035). There were considerable intra-individual differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p < .001). In general, more autonomy was desired for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p < .001).

Conclusion

There is an important role of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, PA should be considered with respect to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general implying a need for communication skills training of health care professionals.

Web-Based Training for Nurses on Shared Decision Making and Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Pregnant women often find it difficult to choose from among the wide variety of available prenatal screening options. To help pregnant women and their partners make informed decisions based on their values, needs, and preferences, a decision aid and a web-based shared decision making (SDM) training program for health professionals have been developed. In Canada, nurses provide maternity care and thus can train as decision coaches for prenatal screening. However, there is a knowledge gap about the effectiveness of SDM interventions in maternity care in nursing practice.

Objective

This study aims to assess the impact of an SDM training program on nurses’ intentions to use a decision aid for prenatal screening and on their knowledge and to assess their overall impressions of the training.

Methods

This is a 2-arm parallel randomized trial. French-speaking nurses working with pregnant women in the province of Quebec were recruited online by a private survey firm. They were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to either an experimental group, which completed a web-based SDM training program that included prenatal screening, or a control group, which completed a web-based training program focusing on prenatal screening alone. The experimental intervention consisted of a 3-hour web-based training hosted on the Université Laval platform with 4 modules: (1) SDM; (2) Down syndrome prenatal screening; (3) decision aids; and (4) communication between health care professionals and the patient. For the control group, the topic of SDM in Module 1 was replaced with “Context and history of prenatal screening,” and the topic of decision aids in Module 3 was replaced with “Consent in prenatal screening.” Participants completed a self-administered sociodemographic questionnaire with close-ended questions. We also assessed the participants' (1) intention to use a decision aid in prenatal screening clinical practice, (2) knowledge, (3) satisfaction with the training, (4) acceptability, and (5) perceived usefulness of the training. The randomization was done using a predetermined sequence and included 40 nurses. Participants and researchers were blinded. Intention to use a decision aid will be assessed by a t test. Bivariate and multivariate analysis will be performed to assess knowledge and overall impressions of the training.

Results

This study was funded in 2017 and approved by Genome Canada. Data were collected from September 2019 to late January 2020. This paper was initially submitted before data analysis began. Results are expected to be published in winter 2020.

Conclusions

Study results will inform us on the impact of an SDM training program on nurses’ intention to use and knowledge of decision aids for prenatal screening and their overall impressions of the training. Participant feedback will also inform an upgrade of the program, if needed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04162288; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04162288

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/17878

Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme-called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)-at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

S2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians' training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

Professional training on shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods implementation study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders is challenging for primary healthcare professionals. We studied the implementation of a professional training program featuring an e-learning activity on shared decision making and five Decision Boxes on the care of people with neurocognitive disorders, and measured the program's effects.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, we recruited healthcare professionals in family medicine clinics and homecare settings in the Quebec City area (Canada). The professionals signed up for training as a continuing professional development activity and answered an online survey before and after training to assess their knowledge, and intention to adopt shared decision making. We recorded healthcare professionals' access to each training component, and conducted telephone interviews with a purposeful sample of extreme cases: half had completed training and the other half had not. We performed bivariate analyses with the survey data and a thematic qualitative analysis of the interviews, as per the theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Of the 47 participating healthcare professionals, 31 (66%) completed at least one training component. Several factors restricted participation, including lack of time, training fragmentation into several components, poor adaptation of training to specific professions, and technical/logistical barriers. Ease of access, ease of use, the usefulness of training content and the availability of training credits fostered participation. Training allowed Healthcare professionals to improve their knowledge about risk communication (p = 0.02), and their awareness of the options (P = 0.011). Professionals' intention to adopt shared decision making was high before training (mean ± SD = 5.88 ± 0.99, scale from 1 to 7, with 7 high) and remained high thereafter (5.94 ± 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will allow modifying the training program to improve participation rates and, ultimately, uptake of meaningful shared decision making with patients living with neurocognitive disorders.

Training Interventions to Equip Health Care Professionals With Shared Decision-Making Skills: A Systematic Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

To support the development, implementation, and evaluation of shared decision-making (SDM) training programs, this article maps the relevant evidence in terms of training program design and content as well as evaluation outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review methodology was used. To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched from 2009 to 2019, and reference lists of included studies were examined. After removal of duplicates, 1367 articles were screened for inclusion. To be included, studies were to be published in peer-reviewed journals, and should not merely be descriptive but report on evaluation outcomes. Articles were reviewed for inclusion by both authors, and data were extracted using a purposely designed data charting form implemented using REDCap.

RESULTS

The review identified 49 studies evaluating 36 unique SDM training programs. There was considerable variation in terms of program design and duration. Most programs included an overview of SDM theories and key competencies, as well as SDM skill development through role plays. Few programs provided training in reflective practice, in identifying and working with patients' individually preferred decision-making style, or in relation to SDM in a context of medical uncertainty or ambiguity. Most programs were evaluated descriptively, mostly using mixed methods, and there were 18 randomized controlled trials, showing that training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills, but was limited in its impact on patients.

DISCUSSION

Although there is limited capacity to comment on which types of training programs are most effective, overall training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills.

Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.

METHODS

We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041623.

Training doctors briefly and in situ to involve their patients in making medical decisions-Preliminary testing of a newly developed module

OBJECTIVE

To carry out preliminary evaluation of a training module for doctors to enhance their ability to involve their patients in medical decision making. The training refers to the shared decision-making (SDM) communication concept.

METHODS

The training module includes a comprehensive manual, a corresponding video tutorial with communication examples and a 15-minute face-to-face feedback session based on an SDM analysis of a consultation recording provided by the trainee. Ten trainees (four neurologists, three dentists, and three general practitioners) participating in the pretest each recorded four clinical consultations (total sample: N=40) and received three training components. After the training, doctors provided feedback on the module's feasibility in a questionnaire. Communication performance of doctors, patients and doctor-patient dyads was assessed by trained observers and self-assessed by doctors and patients using the MAPPIN'SDM approach. Training effects were determined using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests comparing baseline values with post-intervention performance as assessed in the fourth consultations.

RESULTS

The face-to-face training sessions were short and feasible with regard to clinical reality. Participants considered the training supportive for acquiring SDM skills and recommended more emphasis on the face-to-face feedback. Communication improved according to observers rating doctors (P=.05) and doctor-patient dyads (P=.07) and to doctors' own judgements (P=.02). No improvement was observed in patients' SDM behaviour (P=.11); accordingly, patients' judgements did not indicate improvement (P=.14).

CONCLUSIONS

The training is designed to meet clinicians' needs. Improvement of risk communication after training encourages optimization according to doctors' feedback. Following this study, the efficacy of the training is now being examined in a randomized controlled trial.