ArticleMDM policy & practice
Revising a Training Curriculum on Shared Decision Making for Application in Routine Clinical Care: A Report on the SHARE Approach.
Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improving shared decision making (SDM) training curricula may support wider training uptake and the use of SDM across health care settings. Limited uptake of a freely available SDM training curriculum suggested it could benefit from a systematic review and revision process. This report describes the process and revisions of the SHARE Approach curriculum, subsequently used in an implementation trial demonstrating that the revised curriculum remained effective. Methods: A qualitative study using a systematic review on shared decision making, training, and physicians published between 2015 and 2020; clinician and patient reviews and feedback on curriculum training materials; and synthesis of recommended improvements and a team-revised curriculum for testing in clinical practice. Results: Recommendations from the literature and reviewers (9 clinicians and 6 patients) focused on substantially reducing the length of the training curriculum, ideally under 4 h. Reviewers found original content well done and important but suggested removing content that was not explicitly focused on training clinicians how to implement shared decision making in clinical practice by removing discussions of applicable laws, medical interpreters, and patient-centered outcomes research while retaining important strategies for addressing patient health literacy/numeracy and use of decision aids. Limitations: Clinician and patient feedback might not represent the full scope of clinical specialties or patient types who may have different recommendations for revising the original curriculum for other clinical settings. Conclusion: Literature review and user feedback agreed that training curricula on shared decision making needed to be shorter and focus on only essential techniques clinicians need to effectively implement shared decision making in routine practice. Implications: A substantially shortened SHARE Approach curriculum is effective and may facilitate broader shared decision making training of clinicians.
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.