ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared Decision Making and Advance Care Planning in the Context of Promoting Home Medical Care in Japan: A Narrative Review.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Review
- An Exploratory Study of Issues in Training Facilitators for Online Training in Advance Care Planning: Mixed Methods Research.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Correction: Goto, Y.; Miura, H. Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study evaluated an advanced care planning (ACP) training program incorporating online skills in shared decision making (SDM).
methodThe New World Kirkpatrick Model was employed to assess the efficacy of the training program at four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Reaction measured the participants' satisfaction and difficulty with the training program alongside the status of support received from workplaces engaging in ACP. Learning evaluated the changes in SDM skills. Behavior assessed the changes in the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals when the latter were involved in the SDM process. Results evaluated whether the participants were willing to participate in ACP educational programs as a facilitator and whether their motivation for continuous learning changed through throughout the training program. The relationships among patients, healthcare providers, and third-party roles were analyzed in SDM role-playing via structural equation modeling (SEM).
resultsBetween September 2020 and June 2022, 145 multidisciplinary participants completed the entirety of the training program. The most common responses to the training were "satisfied", "slightly difficult", and "I received some support from my workplace". The SDM skills significantly improved from the first to the third workshop, evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. In the first workshop, SDM was primarily performed by healthcare providers; however, in the third workshop, patient-centered SDM was adopted. Of the participants who completed the program, 63% intended to participate in future ACP educational programs as ACP education facilitators.
conclusionThis study ascertained the validity of this training.
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.