Ndeye Thiab Diouf1, Matthew Menear2, Hubert Robitaille1, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard1, France Légaré3. 1. Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, G1L 3L5, Canada. 2. Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, G1L 3L5, Canada; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. 3. Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Research Axis of Population Health and Practice-Changing Research, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Centre, Saint-François-d'Assise Hospital, Quebec City, Quebec, G1L 3L5, Canada; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada. Electronic address: france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update an environmental scan of training programs in SDM for health professionals. METHODS: We searched two systematic reviews for SDM training programs targeting health professionals produced from 2011 to 2015, and also in Google and social networks. With a standardized data extraction sheet, one reviewer extracted program characteristics. All completed extraction forms were validated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: We found 94 new eligible programs in four new countries and two new languages, for a total of 148 programs produced from 1996 to 2015-an increase of 174% in four years. The largest percentage appeared since 2012 (45.27%). Of the 94 newprograms, 42.55% targeted licensed health professionals (n=40), 8.51% targeted pre-licensure (n=8), 28.72% targeted both (n=27), 20.21% did not specify (n=19), and 5.32% targeted also patients (n=5). Only 23.40% of the new programs were reported as evaluated, and 21.28% had published evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Production of SDM training programs is growing fast worldwide. Like the original scan, this update indicates that SDM training programs still vary widely. Most still focus on the single provider/patient dyad and few are evaluated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This update highlights the need to adapt training programs to interprofessional practice and to evaluate them.
OBJECTIVE: To update an environmental scan of training programs in SDM for health professionals. METHODS: We searched two systematic reviews for SDM training programs targeting health professionals produced from 2011 to 2015, and also in Google and social networks. With a standardized data extraction sheet, one reviewer extracted program characteristics. All completed extraction forms were validated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: We found 94 new eligible programs in four new countries and two new languages, for a total of 148 programs produced from 1996 to 2015-an increase of 174% in four years. The largest percentage appeared since 2012 (45.27%). Of the 94 newprograms, 42.55% targeted licensed health professionals (n=40), 8.51% targeted pre-licensure (n=8), 28.72% targeted both (n=27), 20.21% did not specify (n=19), and 5.32% targeted also patients (n=5). Only 23.40% of the new programs were reported as evaluated, and 21.28% had published evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Production of SDM training programs is growing fast worldwide. Like the original scan, this update indicates that SDM training programs still vary widely. Most still focus on the single provider/patient dyad and few are evaluated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This update highlights the need to adapt training programs to interprofessional practice and to evaluate them.
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Meltem Tokat; Ellen G Engelhardt; Pomme E A van Maarschalkerweerd; Marleen Kunneman; Petronella B Ottevanger; Serge E Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-06-29
Authors: Stephanie M Harman; Rebecca Blankenburg; Jason M Satterfield; Brad Monash; Stephanie Rennke; Patrick Yuan; Debbie S Sakai; Eric Huynh; Ian Chua; Joan F Hilton Journal: Acad Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Pomme van Maarschalkerweerd; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Petronella B Ottevanger; Helle-Brit Fiebrich; Serge Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: J Jull; A Hizaka; A J Sheppard; A Kewayosh; P Doering; L MacLeod; G Joudain; J Plourde; D Dorschner; M Rand; M Habash; I D Graham Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Margarita Alegria; Ora Nakash; Kirsten Johnson; Andrea Ault-Brutus; Nicholas Carson; Mirko Fillbrunn; Ye Wang; Alice Cheng; Treniece Harris; Antonio Polo; Alisa Lincoln; Elmer Freeman; Benjamin Bostdorf; Marcos Rosenbaum; Claudia Epelbaum; Martin LaRoche; Ebele Okpokwasili-Johnson; MaJose Carrasco; Patrick E Shrout Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Mina K Chung; Angela Fagerlin; Paul J Wang; Tinuola B Ajayi; Larry A Allen; Tina Baykaner; Emelia J Benjamin; Megan Branda; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Lin Y Chen; George H Crossley; Rebecca K Delaney; Lee L Eckhardt; Kathleen L Grady; Ian G Hargraves; Mellanie True Hills; Matthew M Kalscheur; Daniel B Kramer; Marleen Kunneman; Rachel Lampert; Aisha T Langford; Krystina B Lewis; Ying Lu; John M Mandrola; Kathryn Martinez; Daniel D Matlock; Sarah R McCarthy; Victor M Montori; Peter A Noseworthy; Kate M Orland; Elissa Ozanne; Rod Passman; Krishna Pundi; Dan M Roden; Elizabeth V Saarel; Monika M Schmidt; Samuel F Sears; Dawn Stacey; Randall S Stafford; Benjamin A Steinberg; Sojin Youn Wass; Jennifer M Wright Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-12-06