Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470193›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Links between evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making in courses for doctors in training: a scoping review.

Mary Simons, Frances Rapport, Yvonne Zurynski, Marcus Stoodley, Jeremy Cullis, Andrew S Davidson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Shared decision making: audiology student perspectives.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Mary SimonsLibrary, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia mary.simons@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9627-7861
Frances RapportAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4428-2826
Yvonne ZurynskiAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7744-8717
Marcus StoodleyMacquarie Neurosurgery & Spine, Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4207-8493
Jeremy CullisLibrary, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6041-7965
Andrew S DavidsonPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8449-3727

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis scoping review aims to synthesise the current evidence on the inclusion and effectiveness of integrating evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) into training courses for doctors in training to enhance patient care. Both EBM and SDM appear to be taught separately and their combined role in providing high-quality patient care has not yet been explored.

designScoping review of literature from January 2017 to June 2021.

settingAny setting where doctors in training could undertake EBM and/or SDM courses (hospitals, universities, clinics and online).

participantsDoctors in training (also known as junior doctors, residents, registrars, trainees, fellows) defined as medical graduates undertaking further training to establish a career pathway.

methodsSearches were conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library. Bibliographies of included articles and their cited references were hand searched and assessed for inclusion. Included studies described training and outcomes of either EBM, SDM or both. Reported outcomes included EBM knowledge and skill tests, attitude surveys, SDM checklists and surveys and patient and doctor experience data obtained from surveys, focus groups and interviews.

resultsOf the 26 included studies, 15 described EBM training courses, 10 described SDM training courses and 1 course combined both EBM and SDM. Courses were heterogeneous in their content and outcomes, making comparisons difficult. EBM courses prioritised quantitative outcome assessments and linked knowledge and skills, such as critical appraisal, but overlooked other key elements of patient-centred care including SDM.

conclusionsSDM and EBM are taught separately in most training courses. The inclusion of SDM, evaluated by qualitative assessments, is currently omitted, yet could provide a more person-centred care focus in EBM courses and should be investigated to increase our knowledge of the effectiveness of such courses and their role in improving doctors' skills and patient care. PROTOCOL: A protocol for this review has been published and contains further details of the methodology.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAttitudeDecision Making, SharedEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPatient-Centered Careeducation & training (see medical education & training)internal medicinequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID35470193
PMCPMC9039384

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.