Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24481686›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014

Brief training of student clinicians in shared decision making: a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

Tammy C Hoffmann, Sally Bennett, Clare Tomsett, Chris Del Mar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Learning shared decision making in undergraduate medical education: a realist review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Shared Decision Making of Older Adults in Healthcare.Working with older people (Brighton, England) · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tammy C HoffmannCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, 4229, Australia, thoffmann@bond.edu.au.
Sally Bennett
Clare Tomsett
Chris Del Mar
University of Queensland · AUBond University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making is a crucial component of evidence-based practice, but a lack of training in the "how to" of it is a major barrier to its uptake.

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a brief intervention for facilitating shared decision making skills in clinicians and student clinicians.

designMulti-centre randomized controlled trial.

participantsOne hundred and seven medical students, physiotherapy or occupational therapy students undertaking a compulsory course in evidence-based practice as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate degree from two Australian universities.

interventionThe 1-h small-group intervention consisted of facilitated critique of five-step framework, strategies, and pre-recorded modelled role-play. Both groups were provided with a chapter about shared decision making skills. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was skills in shared decision making and communicating evidence [Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale, items from the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) Tool], rated by a blinded assessor from videorecorded role-plays. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: confidence in these skills and attitudes towards patient-centred communication (Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS)). KEY

resultsOf participants, 95 % (102) completed the primary outcome measures. Two weeks post-intervention, intervention group participants scored significantly higher on the OPTION scale (adjusted group difference = 18.9, 95 % CI 12.4 to 25.4), ACEPP items (difference = 0.9, 95 % CI 0.5 to 1.3), confidence measure (difference = 13.1, 95 % CI 8.5 to 17.7), and the PPOS sharing subscale (difference = 0.2, 95 % CI 0.1 to 0.5). There was no significant difference for the PPOS caring subscale.

conclusionsThis brief intervention was effective in improving student clinicians' ability, attitude towards, and confidence in shared decision making facilitation. Following further testing of the longer-term effects of this intervention, incorporation of this brief intervention into evidence-based practice courses and workshops should be considered, so that student clinicians graduate with these important skills, which are typically neglected in clinician training.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient-Centered CareAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaClinical CompetenceEducationEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareProfessional-Patient RelationsProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID24481686
PMCPMC4026503
OpenAlexW2012851681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.