Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 21;9(6):e026488. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026488.

Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.

Author information

1
Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
2
Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES:

We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:

HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.

METHODS:

We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.

RESULTS:

Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick's levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.

CONCLUSIONS:

Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:

CRD42016041623.

KEYWORDS:

decision making; education [subheading]; outcome assessment (health care); professional-patient relations; review [publication type]

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: EM and AS report grants from Mundipharma GmbH during the conduct of the study. EM, AS, IS, MH and AB conducted SDM communication skills trainings in a project funded by Mundipharma GmbH. NTD and FL have nothing to disclose.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center