<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 22305195
To identify and analyze training programs in shared decision-making (SDM) for health professionals.We conducted an environmental scan looking for programs that train health professionals in SDM. Pairs of reviewers independently analyzed the programs identified using a standardized data extraction sheet. The developers of the programs validated the data extracted.We identified 54 programs conducted between 1996 and 2011 in 14 countries and 10 languages. Thirty-four programs targeted licensed health professionals, 10 targeted pre-licensure health professionals, and 10 targeted both. Most targeted only the medical profession (n=32); six targeted more than one health profession. The five most frequently mentioned teaching methods were case-based discussion, small group educational session, role play, printed educational material, and audit and feedback. Thirty-six programs reported having evaluated their impacts but evaluation data was available only for 17.Health professional training programs in SDM vary widely in how and what they deliver, and evidence of their effectiveness is sparse.This study suggests there is a need for international consensus on ways to address the variability in SDM training programs. We need agreed criteria for certifying the programs and for determining the most effective types of training.
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Health Personnel, Decision Making, 610, Environment, [SHS.ECO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, Environmental scan, Implementation, Patient-Centered Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Training, Humans, Patient Participation, [SHS.ECO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, Patient centered care, Shared decision making, Program Evaluation
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Health Personnel, Decision Making, 610, Environment, [SHS.ECO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, Environmental scan, Implementation, Patient-Centered Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Training, Humans, Patient Participation, [SHS.ECO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, Patient centered care, Shared decision making, Program Evaluation
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=doi_dedup___::d5a06aa97f51bead4fd236445a5613c4&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=doi_dedup___::d5a06aa97f51bead4fd236445a5613c4&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 225 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |