ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2014
Development and pilot testing of an online case-based approach to shared decision making skills training for clinicians.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- A Brief Web-Based Person-Centered Care Group Training Program for the Management of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial in Spain.JMIR medical education · 2025Trial
- Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Article
- Using shared clinical decision support to reduce adverse drug events and improve patient safety.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Shared Decision-Making Training in Family Medicine Residency: A Scoping Review.Korean journal of family medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine.Neurology and therapy · 2023Article
- Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Making shared decisions with older men selecting treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH): a pilot randomized trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Article
- Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Supporting Communication of Shared Decision-Making Principles in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians.
methodsA three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians' general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online.
resultsSeventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient's preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient's values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future.
conclusionsA comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients' desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.