Training health professionals in shared decision making: Update of an international environmental scan

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING

卷:99

Review

Diouf, Ndeye Thiab¹  Menear, Matthew^1,2  Robitaille, Hubert¹  Guerard, Genevieve Painchaud¹  Legare, France^1,2 

[1] Univ Laval, Saint Francois DAssise Hosp, Res Ctr,CHU Quebec,Res Axis Populat Hlth & Pract, Canada Res Chair Shared Decis Making & Knowledge, Quebec City, PQ G1L 3L5, Canada

[2] Pavillon Ferdinand Vandry, Dept Family Med & Emergency Med, Quebec City, PQ G1V 0A6, Canada

关键词: Shared decision making;    Training;    Implementation;    Patient centered care;    Environmental scan;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.008

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

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. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

【 授权许可】

Free