Ready for shared decision making: Pretesting a training module for health professionals on sharing decisions with their patients
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Published version
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10642/9511Utgivelsesdato
2020-03-01Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
Kienlin SM, Nytrøen K, Stacey D, Kasper J. Ready for shared decision making: Pretesting a training module for health professionals on sharing decisions with their patients. Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice. 2020;26(2):610-621 https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13380Sammendrag
Introduction: While shared decision-making (SDM) training programmes for health
professionals have been developed in several countries, few have been evaluated. In
Norway, a comprehensive curriculum, “klar for samvalg” (ready for SDM), for interprofessional health-care teams was created using generic didactic methods and guidance to tailor training to various contexts. The programmes adapted didactic methods
from an evidence-based German training programmes (doktormitSDM). The overall
aim was to evaluate two particular SDM modules on facilitating SDM implementation
into clinical practice.
Method: A descriptive mixed methods study using questionnaires and a focus group
guided by the Medical Research Council Complex Interventions Framework. The
training was provided as two different applications (module AB [introduction and
SDM-basics] and module ABC [introduction, SDM-basics and interactive training])
with differing learning objectives, extent of interactivity, and duration (1 vs 2 hours).
Groups of participants were recruited consecutively based on requests for health professional SDM training in university/college- and hospital-settings. By a focus group
and a self-administered questionnaire comprehensibility, relevance and acceptance
were assessed and qualitative feedback collected after the training. Data passed
descriptive and content analysis, respectively. Knowledge was assessed twice using
five multiple-choice items and analysed using paired t-tests.Results: In 11 (six AB and five ABC) training sessions, 357/429 (296 AB and 133 ABC)
eligible nurses, physicians and health professional students with varying clinical backgrounds and previous levels of SDM-knowledge participated. SDM-knowledge increased
from 25-78% (range pretest) to 85-95% (range post-test) (P ≤ .001).
The training was rated easy to understand, acceptable and relevant for practice. Findings to improve the education suggest higher emphasis on interprofessional teaching methods.
Conclusions: The two SDM training modules met the basic requirements for use in a
broader SDM implementation strategy and can even improve knowledge.