Search

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) has been presented as the preferred approach for decisions where there is more than one acceptable option and has been identified a priority feature of high-quality patient-centered care. Considering the foundation of trust between general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the variety of diseases in primary care, the primary care context can be viewed as roots of SDM. GPs are requesting training programs to improve their SDM skills leading to a more patient-centered care approach. Because of the high number of training programs available, it is important to overview these training interventions specifically for primary care and to explore how these training programs are evaluated. Methods: This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Eight different databases were used in December 2022 and updated in September 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using ICROMS. Training effectiveness was analyzed using the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and categorized according to training format (online, live or blended learning). Results: We identified 29 different SDM training programs for GPs. SDM training has a moderate impact on patient (SMD 0.53 95% CI 0.15–0.90) and observer reported SDM skills (SMD 0.59 95%CI 0.21–0.97). For blended training programs, we found a high impact for quality of life (SMD 1.20 95% CI -0.38-2.78) and patient reported SDM skills (SMD 2.89 95%CI -0.55-6.32). Conclusion: SDM training improves patient and observer reported SDM skills in GPs. Blended learning as learning format for SDM appears to show better effects on learning outcomes than online or live learning formats. This suggests that teaching facilities designing SDM training may want to prioritize blended learning formats. More homogeneity in SDM measurement scales and evaluation approaches and direct comparisons of different types of educational formats are needed to develop the most appropriate and effective SDM training format. Trial registration: PROSPERO: A systematic review of shared-decision making training programs in a primary care setting. PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023393385 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023393385. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of GMS Journal for Medical Education is the property of German Medical Science Publishing House gGmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: There is significant global policy interest related to enabling a data-driven approach for evidence-based primary care system development. This paper describes the development and initial testing of a prototype tool (the Problem-Oriented Primary Care System Development Record, or PCSDR) that enables a data-driven and contextualized approach to primary care system development.Methods: The PCSDR is an electronic record that enables the systematic input, classification, structuring, storage, processing and analysis of different types of data related to the structure, function and performance of primary care systems over time. Data inputted into the PCSDR was coded using the WHO's PHC-IMPACT framework and classification system. The PCSDR's functionalities were tested by using a case study of primary care system development in Tajikistan.Results: Tajikistan's case study demonstrated that the PCSDR is a potentially effective and conceptually-sound tool for the input, classification, structuring and storage of different data types from myriad sources. The PCSDR is therefore a basic data entry and data management system that enables query and analytics functions for health services research and evidence-based primary care system development functions.Conclusions: The PCSDR is a data system that enables a contextualized approach to evidence-based primary care system development. It represents a coherent and effective synthesis of the fields of primary care system development and performance assessment. The PCSDR enables analysts to leverage primary care performance assessment frameworks for a broad range of functions related to health systems analysis, improvement and the development of learning health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: The OPTION scale ("observing patient involvement in decision making") assesses the extent to which clinicians involve patients in decisions across a range of situations in clinical practice. It so far just covers physician behavior. We intended to modify the scoring of the OPTION scale to incorporate active patient behavior in consultations. Methods: Modification was done on scoring level, attempting a dyadic, relationshipcentred approach in that high ratings can be evoked also by the behaviour of active patients. The German version of the OPTION scale was compared with a modified version by analysing video recordings of primary care consultations dealing with cardiovascular prevention. Fifteen general practitioners provided 40 videotaped consultations. Videos were analysed by two rater pairs and two experts in shared decision making (SDM). Results: Reliability measures of the modified version were lower than those of the original scale. Significant associations of the dichotomised scale with the expert SDM rating as well as with physicians' expertise in SDM were only found for the modified OPTION scale. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses confirmed a valid differentiation between the presence of SDM (yes/no) on total score level, even though the cut-off point was quite low. Standard deviations of the single items in the modified version were higher compared to the original OPTION scale, while the means of total scores were similar. Conclusions: The original OPTION scale is physician-centered and neglects the activity and a possible self-involvement of the patient. Our modified instruction was able to capture the dyadic element partially. The development of a separate dyadic instrument might be more promising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]