Assessing medical student knowledge and attitudes about shared decision making across the curriculum: protocol for an international online survey and stakeholder analysis

Marie-Anne Durand, Renata Yen, Paul J Barr, Nan Cochran, Johanna Aarts, France Légaré, Malcolm Reed, A James O'Malley, Peter Scalia, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard, Glyn Elwyn, Marie-Anne Durand, Renata Yen, Paul J Barr, Nan Cochran, Johanna Aarts, France Légaré, Malcolm Reed, A James O'Malley, Peter Scalia, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard, Glyn Elwyn

Abstract

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) is a goal of modern medicine; however, it is not currently embedded in routine care. Barriers include clinicians’ attitudes, lack of knowledge and training and time constraints. Our goal is to support the development and delivery of a robust SDM curriculum in medical education. Our objective is to assess undergraduate medical students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards SDM in four countries.

Methods and analysis: The first phase of the study involves a web-based cross-sectional survey of undergraduate medical students from all years in selected schools across the United States (US), Canada and undergraduate and graduate students in the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom (UK), the survey will be circulated to all medical schools through the UK Medical School Council. We will sample students equally in all years of training and assess attitudes towards SDM, knowledge of SDM and participation in related training. Medical students of ages 18 years and older in the four countries will be eligible. The second phase of the study will involve semistructured interviews with a subset of students from phase 1 and a convenience sample of medical school curriculum experts or stakeholders. Data will be analysed using multivariable analysis in phase 1 and thematic content analysis in phase 2. Method, data source and investigator triangulation will be performed. Online survey data will be reported according to the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys. We will use the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research for all qualitative data.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved for dissemination in the US, the Netherlands, Canada and the UK. The study is voluntary with an informed consent process. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will help inform the inclusion of SDM-specific curriculum in medical education worldwide.

Keywords: Medical education & training; Patient-centered care; Shared decision making.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Financial: M-AD is a consultant to Access Community Health Network, Chicago. GE has been a consultant to: (1) Emmi Solutions LLC who develop patient knowledge tools; (2) National Quality Forum on certification of patient knowledge tools; (3) Washington State Health Department on certification of patient knowledge tools; (4) PatientWisdom LLC, (5) SciMentum, Amsterdam, and (6) Access Community Health Network, Chicago. GE has edited / published books that provide royalties on sales by the publishers: the books have been on Shared Decision Making (Oxford University Press) and Groups (Radcliffe Press). Non-Financial: Many authors are authors of SDM and communication training programs in medical schools. However, they get no financial benefits from it. GE initiated and leads the Option Grid TM patient decision aids Collaborative, which produces and publishes patient knowledge tools in the form of comparison tables (http://optiongrid.org/), and has part ownership of the registered trademark. GE owns copyright in CollaboRATE, IntegRATE, and Observer OPTION measures of shared decision making and care integration. These measures are freely available for use. PJB owns copyright in CollaboRATE.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

References

    1. Mulley AG, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients' preferences matter. BMJ 2012;345:e6572.10.1136/bmj.e6572
    1. Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med 2013;368:6–8.10.1056/NEJMp1209500
    1. Härter M, van der Weijden T, Elwyn G. Policy and practice developments in the implementation of shared decision making: an international perspective. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011;105:229–33.10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.018
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92.10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
    1. Senate and House of Representatives. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 2010.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century, 2001.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision making. (accessed 5 Dec2016).
    1. Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS, 2010.
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Forest PG, et al. . Moving SDM forward in Canada: milestones, public involvement, and barriers that remain. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011;105:245–53.10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.011
    1. van der Weijden T, van Veenendaal H, Drenthen T, et al. . Shared decision making in the Netherlands, is the time ripe for nationwide, structural implementation? Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011;105:283–8.10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.005
    1. Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, et al. . Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect 2015;18:542–61.10.1111/hex.12054
    1. Gravel K, Légaré F, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci 2006;1:16.10.1186/1748-5908-1-16
    1. Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, et al. . Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect 2000;3:182–91.10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00093.x
    1. Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, et al. . Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:526–35.10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018
    1. Elwyn G, Légaré F, van der Weijden T, et al. . Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implement Sci 2008;3:57.10.1186/1748-5908-3-57
    1. Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, et al. . "Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:14.10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S14
    1. Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2014;96:281–6.10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.014
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions Stacey D, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
    1. Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S, et al. . Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals Légaré F, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
    1. Towle A. Shifting the culture of continuing medical education: what needs to happen and why is it so difficult? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2000;20:208–18.10.1002/chp.1340200404
    1. Allaire AS, Labrecque M, Giguere A, et al. . What motivates family physicians to participate in training programs in shared decision making? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012;32:98–107.10.1002/chp.21132
    1. Légaré F, Politi MC, Drolet R, et al. . Training health professionals in shared decision-making: an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns 2012;88:159–69.10.1016/j.pec.2012.01.002
    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1.10.1056/NEJMp1109283
    1. Tsimtsiou Z, Kirana PS, Hatzichristou D. Determinants of patients' attitudes toward patient-centered care: a cross-sectional study in Greece. Patient Educ Couns 2014;97:391–5.10.1016/j.pec.2014.08.007
    1. Hook KM, Pfeiffer CA. Impact of a new curriculum on medical students' interpersonal and interviewing skills. Med Educ 2007;41:154–9.10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02680.x
    1. Pfeiffer C, Madray H, Ardolino A, et al. . The rise and fall of students' skill in obtaining a medical history. Med Educ 1998;32:283–8.10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00222.x
    1. Shankar PR, Dubey AK, Subish P, et al. . Attitudes of first-year medical students towards the doctor patient relationship. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2006;45:196-203–45..
    1. Shankar PR, Dubey AK, Subish P, et al. . Student attitudes towards the doctor-patient relationship in a medical college in western Nepal. Med Teach 2006;28:199.
    1. Tsimtsiou Z, Kerasidou O, Efstathiou N, et al. . Medical students' attitudes toward patient-centred care: a longitudinal survey. Med Educ 2007;41:146–53.10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02668.x
    1. Weston WW. Informed and shared decision-making: the crux of patient-centered care. CMAJ 2001;165:438–9.
    1. Zeballos-Palacios C, Quispe R, Mongilardi N, et al. . Shared decision making in Senior Medical students. Medical Decision Making 2015;35:533–8.10.1177/0272989X15573746
    1. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting results of internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e34.10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are Enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 2006;18:59–82.10.1177/1525822X05279903
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57.10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
    1. Wilson Van Voorhis CR, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining Sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2007;3:43–50.10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, et al. . The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect 2005;8:34–42.10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x
    1. Qualtrics. Security Statement. 2016. (accessed 8 Dec2016).
    1. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2000.
    1. Holloway I. Qualitative research in Healthcare. 1st ed. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 2005.
    1. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000;320:114–6.10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114
    1. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, et al. . The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545–7.10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
    1. Denzin NK. Sociological methods: a sourcebook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj