Exploring approaches to teaching communication practices for shared decision-making in medical education: A scoping review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective Health professional education researchers have documented increased training on shared decision-making (SDM) skills in undergraduate as well as continuing professional development (CPD). In this review, we seek to understand the current methods and approaches to teaching SDM for healthcare providers and trainees. Methods This scoping review involved the systematic search of 4 databases: MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Scopus for qualitative and quantitative studies literature covering the topic of teaching SDM in medical education. Results We identified 20 records that met our search criteria and were included in this study. We found that SDM training provided in medical education included a combination of teaching modalities: literature, didactics, simulations, role-playing games (RPGs), video tutorials, in-person feedback, case studies, pre-/post-assessments, online forum, group discussion, online modules, and decision boxes. We also found that the foci and results of the papers in the included studies could be classified into one of 5 main themes: prior knowledge of and training in SDM; impact on SDM skills of the participants; impact on the training on the confidence of the participants in practicing SDM; impact on knowledge of and attitudes towards SDM; and perceptions of the participants of the SDM training received. Conclusion Our scoping review shows that there is relatively limited literature available exploring teaching SDM in medical education. In addition, there is high heterogeneity in the documented approaches taken to teach SDM, to observe and measure the outcomes of the training, and to explore the factors supporting and impeding SDM training. Although there are different approaches to teaching SDM, serious gaming has been shown to have promising results as a training modality and warrants deeper investigation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.