Simone Kienlin1,2,3, Kari Nytrøen3,4, Dawn Stacey5,6, Jürgen Kasper1,7. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Langnes, Norway. 2. The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Department of Medicine and Healthcare, Hamar, Norway. 3. Division of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, OsloMET Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Maria Helene Jacobsen; Cecilie Sommer; Siw Anna Wernberg; Helga Schultz; Sofie Charlotte Fage Hjortø; Maria Kristiansen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 2.655