Shared Decision Making
Conditions
Brief summary
The SHARE Approach Evaluation study was meant to evaluate the SHARE Approach, designed by AHRQ and updated by UCD. The SHARE Approach is a training program for clinicians on shared decision making.
Detailed description
This research group has been selected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to evaluate its SHARE Approach Model. This model is designed to improve shared-decision making (SDM) between providers and patients, and teaches clinicians skills that are applicable to SDM in the context of preference-sensitive treatment choice and problem-solving. It remains one of the only freely available SDM toolkits that provides clinician-facing resources for comprehensive SDM training. This study will assess the effectiveness of the SHARE model training using training evaluation surveys, card survey data with providers who have received the SHARE training, and their patients, and audio recordings of clinician/patient encounters. The training and evaluations will be done at a total of 12 health care practices (10 primary care practices and 2 cardiology practices). All research data will be de-identified and kept confidential.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSHARE Approach
The SHARE Approach training was given at each of these centers, teaching skills to clinicians about shared decision making.
Sponsors
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
University of Colorado, Denver
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Inclusion criteria
* Population to be enrolled include clinicians and any practice staff who participate in the SHARE Approach training in 12 practices to be recruited across Colorado. * Patients will also be enrolled for the card surveys and audio recordings if they are meeting with a clinician who has taken the SHARE Approach training. * 18 to 89 years old
Exclusion criteria
* Children * Decisionally challenged * Prisoners
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinician training evaluation: Overall evaluation of the SHARE training | post-training | clinicians answered the question: Overall, what was your experience of the training you received today. Likert rating scale was Very positive to Very negative |
| Clinician training evaluation: Confidence in ability to do shared decision making | pre-training, post-training, 2-month follow-up | Clinician confidence in doing shared decision making was measured by a brief card survey question with a 5 point Likert scale. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness. |
| Clinician training evaluation: Confidence in understanding what shared decision making is | pre-training, post-training | Clinician confidence in understanding shared decision making was measured by a brief card survey question with a 5 point Likert scale. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness. |
| Card survey: Clinician satisfaction with encounter | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | Clinician satisfaction with encounter was measured by a brief card survey question with a 5 point Likert scale. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness. |
| Card survey: Patient satisfaction with encounter | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | Patient satisfaction with encounter was measured by a brief card survey question with a 5 point Likert scale. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness. |
| Card survey: Clinician shared decision making (self-reported) | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | After clinician/patient encounters, clinicians were asked to fill out a brief card survey rating shared decision making that occurred during the encounter. These include questions from the Dyadic OPTION (observing patient involvement in decision making) scale. Higher scores reflected better experiences of shared decision making, whereas lower scores reflected poorer experiences of shared decision making. |
| Card survey: Patient shared decision making (self-reported) | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | After clinician/patient encounters, patients were asked to fill out a brief card survey rating their experiences with shared decision making during the encounter. These included questions modified from the Dyadic OPTION (observing patient involvement in decision making) scale. Higher scores reflected better experiences of shared decision making, whereas lower scores reflected poorer experiences of shared decision making. |
| Audio recordings: Shared Decision Making (highest score of topics discussed) | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | A subset of clinician/patient encounters were audio recorded, and then coded using a modified OPTION (observing patient involvement in decision making) 12 coding schema for elements of shared decision making occurring within the encounter. As a primary outcome, we selected the highest-scored topic discussed in each encounter. Higher scores reflected better experiences of shared decision making, whereas lower scores reflected poorer experiences of shared decision making. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Shared Decision Making (total score) | pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up | Clinician/patient encounters were audio recorded, and then coded using a modified OPTION (observing patient involvement in decision making) 12 coding schema for different elements of shared decision making within the encounter. The secondary outcome was the total score for each encounter, which averaged across scores for all topics discussed. Higher scores reflected better experiences of shared decision making, whereas lower scores reflected poorer experiences of shared decision making. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed