ArticleBMC nursing2025
Development and preliminary evaluation of a decision coach training module for nurses in Norway.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Nurses' Intention and Behavior in Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study.The journal of nursing research : JNR · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of gynecologic oncology nurses toward patient decision aids for fertility preservation: a cross-sectional study in Zhengzhou, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative patient-centred process for arriving at informed healthcare decisions. Decision coaching can help support SDM when combined with patient decision aids. As part of a meta-curriculum "Ready for SDM" for training different healthcare professionals in SDM, we developed and pilot-tested a new module designed to train nurses as decision coaches. The study assessed nurses' perceptions of a decision coach training module, focusing on its feasibility, acceptability and its role in developing decision coaching capabilities.
methodsWe used a two-phase approach guided by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. In the first phase, we developed a decision coach training module. The second phase involved preliminary testing, using a descriptive design with qualitative and quantitative methods. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two hospitals. Participants completed questionnaires at the end of Part A (classroom training). The assessment was informed by Kirkpatrick's first three levels of educational outcomes: reaction (acceptability), learning (self-reported attitudes, intentions and confidence) and behaviour (practical application of decision coaching). A post-hoc inquiry investigated low participation in Part B of the coach training. Qualitative data underwent content analysis and quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsThe development resulted in a decision coach training comprising a Part A (6 h) on SDM and decision coaching fundamentals and a Part B (1 h) which involved practical application of decision coaching in the participants' own practice (audio recorded) with self-appraisal and individualised feedback. In preliminary testing with 19 nurses from seven clinical departments, 90% of participants rated Part A as acceptable and relevant to practice. Only one nurse completed Part B due to reluctance to audio record coaching sessions. The most reported perceived barrier was time constraints. Key perceived facilitators identified were interprofessional collaboration, management support and additional practical training.
conclusionDecision coach training was feasible to deliver in the classroom. Participants reported Part A as acceptable and relevant to their practice. The second part, including an audio recording component, proved unfeasible. Further research should explore alternative methods for skill assessment and feedback in clinical practice. The results from this study will inform further refinement of the Norwegian Ready for SDM meta-curriculum and implementation strategies, particularly regarding the practical training components.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered (14.02.2023) at ISRCTN (ISRCTN44143097).
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.