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.

The guided use of an e-health tool to strengthen health literacy. A pilot study in a multicultural diabetes population in a primary care clinic in Brussels.

Objectives: We aimed to investigate whether the use of an e-health tool, guided by a healthcare provider, can improve health literacy (HL) in primary care. Methods: We set up a longitudinal prospective cohort study in a primary care clinic in Brussels. Diabetes patients were invited to participate in two study consultations with a trained healthcare provider, in which an e-health tool was introduced. The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) was used to evaluate HL before (n = 59) and after intervention (n = 41). The data were analysed within SPSS, Version 26. Additionally, impressions and experiences of both patients and healthcare providers were collected throughout the different phases of the study. Results: Patients feel significantly stronger in finding good health information after intervention (p = 0.041), with relatively stronger progress for the subgroup with weaker digital skills (p = 0.029). Participants also declare understanding health information better after intervention (p = 0.050). Specifically, the lower educated participants feel reinforced to correctly evaluate and assess health information and come closer to the skill level of the higher educated patients after intervention. The relationship with the healthcare provider was also more markedly enhanced within the group of the lower educated (p = 0.008; difference between higher and lower educated), which could strengthen self-management in the long run. Conclusions: The guided use of an e-health tool in primary care strengthens various patient HL skills. Most particularly the skills "the ability to find good health information" and "understand health information well enough to know what to do" are reinforced. Moreover, patient populations with lower HL, such as the lower educated and lower digitally skilled, show a greater learning potential. Innovation: Our results offer further proof for the learnable and flexible nature of HL, and show that even a small e-health intervention, in a very diverse patient population, can produce significant, positive effects on HL. These results need to be considered as promising, and a motivation for further investments in more widely accessible e-health tools to further improve HL at population level and to bridge health differences.