Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Study protocol

Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial on two new dissemination strategies for a brief, shared-decision-making (SDM) training for oncologists: web-based interactive SDM online-training versus individualized context-based SDM face-to-face training

Authors: Nicole Müller, Kathrin M. Gschwendtner, Sarah Dwinger, Corinna Bergelt, Wolfgang Eich, Martin Härter, Christiane Bieber

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Oncological patients often feel left out of important treatment decisions. However, when physicians engage them in shared decision-making (SDM), patients benefit in many ways and the situation is improved. SDM can effectively be taught to physicians, but participation barriers for SDM physician group trainings are high, making it hard to convince physicians to participate.
With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate two new dissemination strategies for a brief, SDM training program based upon a proven SDM group-training concept: an individualized context-based SDM face-to-face training (IG I) and a web-based interactive SDM online training (IG II).
We aim to analyze which improvements can be achieved by IG I and II compared to a control group (CG) in physician SDM competence and performance as well as the impact on the physician-patient relationship. Furthermore, we analyze differences in satisfaction concerning the two dissemination strategies by means of a training evaluation.

Methods/design

We examine – based on a three-armed randomized controlled trial (IG I, IG II, CG) – the effectiveness of two new dissemination strategies for a SDM training program compared to a CG receiving no SDM training (voluntary access to SDM training as an incentive for participation after completion of the study). We aim to include 162 physicians randomized to one of the three arms. There will be two assessment points in time (before intervention: T0 and post-training: T1). The main outcome is the SDM competence of physicians as measured by an established observational assessment rating system (OPTION-12) by means of consultations with Standardized Patients. Standardized Patients are individuals trained to act as “real” patients. Secondary outcome measures are the SDM performance (SDM-Q-9) and the Questionnaire on the Quality of Physician-Patient-Interaction (QQPPI) both rated by Standardized Patients as well as the physicians’ training evaluation.

Discussion

This trial will assess the effectiveness and acceptability of two new dissemination strategies for a brief, SDM training program for physicians. Opportunities and challenges regarding implementation in daily routines will be discussed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02674360. Prospectively registered on 4 February 2016.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp K. Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(6):1145–51.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Braun B, Marstedt G. Partizipative Entscheidungsfindung beim Arzt: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Meierjürgen R, editors. Gesundheitsmontitor 2014: Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2014. p. 107–31.
3.
Gattellari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. Sharing decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(12):1865–78.PubMedCrossRef
4.
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(5):681–92.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9–18.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Politi MC, Clark MA, Ombao H, Dizon D, Elwyn G. Communicating uncertainty can lead to less decision satisfaction: a necessary cost of involving patients in shared decision making? Health Expect. 2011;14(1):84–91.d.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kehl KL, Landrum MB, Arora NK, Ganz PA, van Ryn M, Mack JW, et al. Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):50–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Robinski M, Mau W, Wienke A, Girndt M. Shared decision-making in chronic kidney disease: a retrospection of recently initiated dialysis patients in Germany. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):562–70.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, Bernhard J, Ribi K, Juraskova I. Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):857–62.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Buhse S, Mühlhauser I, Heller T, Kuniss N, Müller UA, Kasper J, et al. Informed shared decision-making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5(11):e009116.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Bieber C, Muller KG, Blumenstiel K, Schneider A, Richter A, Wilke S, et al. Long-term effects of a shared decision-making intervention on physician-patient interaction and outcome in fibromyalgia. A qualitative and quantitative 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(3):357–66.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Loh A, Simon D, Kriston L, Härter M. Shared decision making in medicine. Dtsch Arztebl International. 2007;104(21):1483–8.
13.
Pollard S, Bansback N, Bryan S. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(9):1046–57.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Brom L, De Snoo-Trimp JC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Widdershoven GA, Stiggelbout AM, Pasman HR. Challenges in shared decision making in advanced cancer care: a qualitative longitudinal observational and interview study. Health Expect. 2015;20:69–84.
15.
Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(10):1172–9.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Legaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID. 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(3):526–35.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Legaré F, Politi MC, Drolet R, Desroches S, Stacey D, Bekker H. Training health professionals in shared decision-making: an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):159–69.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Bieber C, Nicolai J, Hartmann M, Blumenstiel K, Ringel N, Schneider A, et al. Training physicians in shared decision-making—who can be reached and what is achieved? Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):48–54.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, Atwell C, Robling M, Houston H, et al. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract. 2004;21(4):347–54.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Legaré F, Turcotte S, Stacey D, Ratte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID. Patients’ perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice. Patient. 2012;5(1):1–19.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Rollnick S, Kinnersley P, Butler C. Context-bound communication skills training: development of a new method. Med Educ. 2002;36(4):377–83.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Härter M, Buchholz A, Nicolai J, Reuter K, Komarahadi F, Kriston L, et al. Shared decision making and the use of decision aids. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(40):672–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Baer JS, Wells EA, Rosengren DB, Hartzler B, Beadnell B, Dunn C. Agency context and tailored training in technology transfer: a pilot evaluation of motivational interviewing training for community counselors. J Subst Abus Treat. 2009;37(2):191–202.CrossRef
24.
Jerant A, Kravitz RL, Azari R, White L, Garcia JA, Vierra H, et al. Training residents to employ self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques: randomized controlled trial of a standardized patient intervention. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(5):606–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
26.
Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181–96.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ. 2010;44(8):765–74.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Volk RJ, Shokar NK, Leal VB, Bulik RJ, Linder SK, Mullen PD, et al. Development and pilot testing of an online case-based approach to shared decision making skills training for clinicians. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Bernert J. Neue Wege in der Qualifizierung – E-Learning in der nephrologischen Pflege. Dialyse Aktuell. 2011;15(01):22–4.CrossRef
30.
Borg E, Waschkau AW, Engelbrecht J, Brösicke K. Ärztliche Fortbildung im Internet: Kriterien für gutes E-Learning. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(10):421–2.
31.
32.
Kalyuga S, Sweller J. Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2005;53(3):83–93.CrossRef
33.
Kalyuga S. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007;19(4):509–39.CrossRef
34.
Aspegren K. BEME Guide No. 2: Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine—a review with quality grading of articles. Med Teach. 1999;21(6):563–70.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Mansouri M, Lockyer J. A meta-analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2007;27(1):6–15.CrossRef
36.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):93–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8(1):34–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Goss C, Fontanesi S, Mazzi MA, Del Piccolo L, Rimondini M, Elwyn G, et al. Shared decision making: the reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(3):296–302.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):284–90.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bieber C, Müller KG, Nicolai J, Hartmann M, Eich W. How does your doctor talk with you? Preliminary validation of a brief patient self-report questionnaire on the quality of physician-patient interaction. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2010;17(2):125–36.PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
44.
Bieber C, Loh A, Ringel N, Eich W, Härter M. Patientenbeteiligung bei medizinischen Entscheidungen: Manual zur Partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung (Shared Decision Making). Heidelberg: Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg; 2007.
45.
Körner M, Ehrhardt H, Steger A-K. Designing an interprofessional training program for shared decision making. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(2):146–54.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Menachery EP, Knight AM, Kolodner K, Wright SM. Physician characteristics associated with proficiency in feedback skills. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(5):440–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Tippelt R, Schmidt B. Handbuch Bildungsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2010.CrossRef
48.
Nothnagle M, Goldman R, Quirk M, Reis S. Promoting self-directed learning skills in residency: a case study in program development. Acad Med. 2010;85(12):1874–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Terry R, Hiester E, James GD. The use of standardized patients to evaluate family medicine resident decision making. Fam Med. 2007;39(4):261–5.PubMed
50.
Kruppa E, Jünger J, Nikendei C. Einsatz innovativer Lern- und Prüfungsmethoden an den Medizinischen Fakultäten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2009;134(08):371–2.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Cleland JA, Abe K, Rethans JJ. The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE Guide No 42. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):477–86.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Stubenrouch FE, Pieterse AH, Falkenberg R, Santema TK, Stiggelbout AM, van der Weijden T, et al. OPTION5 versus Option12 instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(6):1062–8.
53.
Scholl I, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Sepucha K, Elwyn G, Legaré F, Härter M, et al. Measurement of shared decision making – a review of instruments. Zeitschrift Evid Fortbildung Qual Gesundheitswesen. 2011;105:313–24.CrossRef
54.
55.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Schrimpf D, Plotnicki L, Pilz LR. Web-based open source application for the randomization process in clinical trials: RANDI2. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;48(7):465–7.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Unnebrink K, Windeler J. Intention-to-treat: methods for dealing with missing values in clinical trials of progressively deteriorating diseases. Stat Med. 2001;20(24):3931–46.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial on two new dissemination strategies for a brief, shared-decision-making (SDM) training for oncologists: web-based interactive SDM online-training versus individualized context-based SDM face-to-face training
Authors
Nicole Müller
Kathrin M. Gschwendtner
Sarah Dwinger
Corinna Bergelt
Wolfgang Eich
Martin Härter
Christiane Bieber
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-3112-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units

Study protocol

Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Novel optical spectral transmission (OST)-guided versus conventionally disease activity-guided treatment: study protocol of a randomized clinical trial on guidance of a treat-to-target strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis

Study protocol

Effects of motor imagery training of Parkinson's disease: a protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Research

Promoting physical activity among community groups of older women in socio-economically disadvantaged areas: randomised feasibility study

Study protocol

High-flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in COPD patients with mild-to-moderate hypercapnic acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a noninferiority randomized clinical trial