Ready for shared decision making: Pretesting a training module for health professionals on sharing decisions with their patients

• Published in: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
• Main Authors: Kienlin, Simone Maria, Nytrøen, Kari, Stacey, Dawn, Kasper, Jürgen
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2020
• Subjects: Curriculum; Decision making; Interprofessionals; Medical education; Training; Shared decision making; Norway; North Norway; Northern Norway
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10642/9511; https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13380

Introduction: While shared decision-making (SDM) training programmes for health professionals have been developed in several countries, few have been evaluated. In Norway, a comprehensive curriculum, “klar for samvalg” (ready for SDM), for interprofessional health-care teams was created using generic didactic methods and guidance to tailor training to various contexts. The programmes adapted didactic methods from an evidence-based German training programmes (doktormitSDM). The overall aim was to evaluate two particular SDM modules on facilitating SDM implementation into clinical practice. Method: A descriptive mixed methods study using questionnaires and a focus group guided by the Medical Research Council Complex Interventions Framework. The training was provided as two different applications (module AB [introduction and SDM-basics] and module ABC [introduction, SDM-basics and interactive training]) with differing learning objectives, extent of interactivity, and duration (1 vs 2 hours). Groups of participants were recruited consecutively based on requests for health professional SDM training in university/college- and hospital-settings. By a focus group and a self-administered questionnaire comprehensibility, relevance and acceptance were assessed and qualitative feedback collected after the training. Data passed descriptive and content analysis, respectively. Knowledge was assessed twice using five multiple-choice items and analysed using paired t-tests.Results: In 11 (six AB and five ABC) training sessions, 357/429 (296 AB and 133 ABC) eligible nurses, physicians and health professional students with varying clinical backgrounds and previous levels of SDM-knowledge participated. SDM-knowledge increased from 25-78% (range pretest) to 85-95% (range post-test) (P ≤ .001). The training was rated easy to understand, acceptable and relevant for practice. Findings to improve the education suggest higher emphasis on interprofessional teaching methods. Conclusions: The two SDM training modules met the basic requirements for use in a broader SDM implementation strategy and can even improve knowledge. The project was funded by the Northern Norway Regional Health Authority and was undertaken as part of the project “DAfactory ‐ Strategies of development, evaluation and implementation of patient treatment decision aids at the University Hospital of North Norway, UNN” (HST1246‐15). publishedVersion