SHARE Approach Evaluation

The SHARE Approach Evaluation study was meant to evaluate the SHARE Approach, designed by AHRQ and UCD. The SHARE Approach is a training program for clinicians on shared decision making.

Study Overview

• Status: Active, not recruiting
• Conditions: Shared Decision Making
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: SHARE Approach

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.

• Study Type: Observational
• Enrollment (Actual): 176

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Colorado
    • Aurora, Colorado, United States, 80045
      • University of Colorado

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: N/A

• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

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.

Description

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

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Number of groups / cohorts

2

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort	Intervention / Treatment
Primary Care Practice; We recruited 10 primary care practices from across Colorado, from all regions of the state (e.g., Eastern Plains, Mountain West, Front Range), and a mix of rural and urban practices of varying sizes. We recruited both practice staff and patients for this cohort.	Behavioral: SHARE Approach; The SHARE Approach training was given at each of these centers, teaching skills to clinicians about shared decision making.
Cardiology Practice; We recruited 2 cardiology practices from across Colorado, from all regions of the state (e.g., Eastern Plains, Mountain West, Front Range), and a mix of rural and urban practices of varying sizes. We recruited both practice staff and patients for this cohort.	Behavioral: SHARE Approach; The SHARE Approach training was given at each of these centers, teaching skills to clinicians about shared decision making.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Usefulness of the SHARE Approach training	Usefulness of the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants how useful they found the SHARE approach. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness.	up to 1 day post-training
Usefulness of the SHARE Approach training	Usefulness of the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants how useful they found the SHARE approach. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness.	2 months post-training
Ability to engage in shared decision making	Engagement of Shared Decision Making from the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants how able they feel to engage in shared decision making after the SHARE approach training. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness.	up to 1 day post-training
Ability to engage in shared decision making	Engagement of Shared Decision Making from the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants how able they feel to engage in shared decision making after the SHARE approach training. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating less usefulness and higher scores indicating more usefulness.	2 months post-training
Overall evaluation of the SHARE Approach	Overall evaluation of the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants whether they would positively or negatively evaluate the SHARE approach. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating more negative values and higher scores indicating more positive values.	up to 1 day post-training
Overall evaluation of the SHARE Approach	Overall evaluation of the SHARE approach training will be measured using a training evaluation survey question that asks participants whether they would positively or negatively evaluate the SHARE approach. Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating more negative values and higher scores indicating more positive values.	2 months post-training
Confidence in doing shared decision making	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Confidence in doing shared decision making	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.	2 months post-training
Confidence in doing shared decision making	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.	up to 6 months post-training
Confidence in understanding shared decision making	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Confidence in understanding shared decision making	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.	up to 6 months post-training
Clinician satisfaction with encounter	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Clinician satisfaction with encounter	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.	up to 6 months post-training
Patient satisfaction with encounter	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Patient satisfaction with encounter	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.	up to 6 months post-training
Clinician shared decision making (self-reported)	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Clinician shared decision making (self-reported)	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.	up to 24 hours post-training
Clinician shared decision making (self-reported)	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.	2 months post-training
Patient shared decision making (self-reported)	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.	up to 6 months pre-training
Patient shared decision making (self-reported)	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 scale. Higher scores reflected better experiences of shared decision making, whereas lower scores reflected poorer experiences of shared decision making.	up to 24 hours post-training
Patient shared decision making (self-reported)	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.	2 months post-training
Shared Decision Making (highest score)	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.	At clinic visit, up to 12 months post-training

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Shared Decision Making (total score)	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.	At clinic visit, up to 12 months post-training

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Colorado, Denver
• Collaborators: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Laura Scherer, PhD, University of Colorado, Denver

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): August 1, 2019
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 30, 2023
• Study Completion (Estimated): November 30, 2023

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: September 7, 2023
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 25, 2023
• First Posted (Actual): October 2, 2023

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): October 2, 2023
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 25, 2023
• Last Verified: September 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: 19-3053

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No