Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962972›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2021

Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study.

Tammy C Hoffmann, Chris Del Mar, Ramai Santhirapala, Alexandra Freeman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. GPs' perceptions of teaching methods in shared decision-making training: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tammy C HoffmannInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia thoffmann@bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5210-8548
Chris Del MarInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Ramai SanthirapalaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexandra FreemanWinton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4115-161X
Bond University · AUGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the development and initial evaluation of a brief e-learning course as a means of teaching shared decision making and risk communication skills to clinicians of all specialties.

designComparison pre-course and post-course of scores in subjective confidence and objective knowledge about shared decision making and risk communication.

settingOnline and open to all specialties and levels of clinical experience, including students.

participantsThe course is freely available online and all who started the course from September 2018 to May 2020 were invited to participate in the evaluation study.

interventionThe self-guided e-learning course is made up of four modules and takes approximately 2 hours to complete. It is hosted on the website of the Winton Centre for Risk Communication and the UK's National Health Service e-learning platform.

main outcome measuresPre-course and post-course confidence in performing shared decision making (as measured by a 10-item scale adapted from the OPTION tool; total score range 10-50), and objective knowledge about basic principles of shared decision making and risk communication, as measured by performance on four knowledge questions and three calculations. At course commencement, a single item from the Berlin Numeracy Test, and the eight-item Subjective Numeracy Test were also asked.

resultsOf 366 unique participants who consented and commenced the course, 210 completed all modules and the final post-course test. Participants' mean age was 38.1 years, 69% were in current clinical practice and had a mean of 10.5 years of clinical practice. Numeracy was relatively low, with 50.7% correctly answering the Berlin Numeracy Test item pre-course. Participants who completed the course showed a significant improvement in their confidence by a mean summed score of 3.7 units (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6, p<0.0001) from a mean pre-course of 37.4 (SD 6.1) to post-course of 41.1 (SD 6.9). There was an increase in the proportion of correct answers for most knowledge questions (p<0.0001, p=0.013 for two directly compared), although no improvement in most skill questions that involved numbers (eg, calculating relative risks). Participants with higher numeracy appeared to show higher skill and confidence on most questions.

conclusionsThis online, free e-learning course was successful in increasing participants' confidence in, and some aspects of knowledge about, shared decision making and risk communication. It also highlighted the need for improvements in clinicians' numerical skills as a vital part of training. We suggest that the course is used in combination with practical face-to-face experience and more intensive numerical skills training.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedState MedicineAdultCommunicationHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32962972
PMCPMC8479734
OpenAlexW3088938217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.