Physicians' and residents' educational needs regarding shared decision making: A focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the educational needs of physicians and residents regarding shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with 12 general practitioners (GPs), 14 hospital specialists, 12 hospital specialist residents and 13 GP residents in Belgium. We used thematic analysis to guide data analysis. RESULTS: We identified five educational needs: (1) the need for a clear understanding of the definition of SDM and its scope; (2) how to deal with a changing professional identity; (3) acquisition of skills to perform SDM; (4) the need for reflective practice in a supportive environment; and (5) sustainable and longitudinal integration in education. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first focus group study emphasizing dealing with a changing professional identity as an educational need, besides the need for SDM-related knowledge and skills. Physicians stated that implementing spiral learning is needed at all stages of medical training, aimed at all specialties to foster interprofessional collaboration. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings can support development of future educational SDM interventions, integrating both competence development and professional identity formation. We provide practical recommendations on didactic formats and strategies, hoping to finally reach better implementation of SDM in daily practice.

A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners.

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 .

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Encounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care. METHODS: We applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis. RESULTS: Direct observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Prevalence of Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in General Practice.

Background: One of the lesser recognized complications of diabetes mellitus are musculoskeletal (MSK) complications of the upper and lower extremity. No prevalence studies have been conducted in general practice. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of upper extremity MSK disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the Netherlands. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with two different approaches, namely a representative Dutch primary care medical database study and a questionnaire study among patients with T2DM. Results: In the database study, 2669 patients with T2DM and 2669 non-diabetes patients were included. MSK disorders were observed in 16.3% of patients with T2DM compared to 11.2% of non-diabetes patients (p < 0.001, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31, 1.80). In the questionnaire study, 200 patients with T2DM were included who reported a lifetime prevalence of painful upper extremity body sites for at least four weeks of 67.3%. Conclusion: We found that upper extremity MSK disorders have a high prevalence in Dutch patients with T2DM presenting in general practice. The prevalence ranges from 16% based on GP registered disorders and complaints to 67% based on self-reported diagnosis and pain. Early detection and treatment of these disorders may play a role in preventing the development of chronic MSK disorders.

What Is the Diagnosis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Who Have a Painful Shoulder? Results from a Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus have higher risk of developing shoulder pathology. However, only adhesive capsulitis is addressed in shoulder pain guidelines as a disorder associated with diabetes. Yet, patients with diabetes are at risk of having several other shoulder disorders, including focal neuropathy. Our aim was to quantify the presence of shoulder disorders using physical examination and ultrasound imaging in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) suffering from shoulder pain in general practice. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, patients with T2DM who had had a painful shoulder for at least four weeks were included. Patients filled out a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination of the shoulders and feet and ultrasound imaging of the shoulder. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included, of whom 40.9% (n = 27) had bilateral complaints resulting in 93 symptomatic shoulders. Subacromial pain syndrome was most frequently diagnosed by physical examination (66.6%, 95% CI 51.6-72.0%; p < 0.0001), while ultrasound imaging showed that subacromial disorders were statistically significantly the most prevalent (90.3%, 95% CI 81.9-95.2%). Only two patients (3%) were diagnosed with neuropathic shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: When choosing treatment, general practitioners should be aware that in patients with T2DM the subacromial region is most frequently affected.

Awareness of limited joint mobility in type 2 diabetes in general practice in the Netherlands: an online questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: Next to the well-known micro- and macrovascular complications, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities referred to as limited joint mobility (LJM), e.g. carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and adhesive capsulitis. Unrecognized and untreated LJM can lead to poor quality of life and non-compliance to diabetes treatment which aggravates LJM. Despite its reported higher prevalence in international prevalence studies, examination of the upper extremities is still no part of the regular diabetes mellitus (DM) check-ups. The primary aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the awareness of Dutch GPs and nurse practitioners concerning LJM. Secondary aims were to evaluate the current management of a patient with LJM, and to assess opinions regarding the question of who should screen for LJM if this is done in the near future. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among 390 general practitioners (GPs) and 245 nurse practitioners (NPs) of three diabetes care groups in The Netherlands to assess their awareness of the association between DM and LJM. RESULTS: Most GPs are not aware that LJM is a DM complication, with an unawareness for specific upper extremity disorders ranging from 59 to 73%. Of the NPs, 76% is not aware either. Only 41% of GPs would advise the most optimal treatment for diabetes patient with CTS. Finally, only 25% of the GPs believe that screening for LJM should be performed during the regular diabetes check-up compared to 63% of the NPs. CONCLUSION: The majority of GPs and NPs are not aware of LJM as a T2DM complication. In contrast to NPs, most GPs do not believe that screening for LJM should be performed during the regular diabetes check-up.