Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Shared Decision Making: Results From a Multinational, Cross-Sectional Survey.

Introduction. We aimed to conduct a multinational cross-sectional online survey of medical students' attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experience with shared decision making (SDM). Methods. We conducted the survey from September 2016 until May 2017 using the following: 1) a convenience sample of students from four medical schools each in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands (n = 12), and 2) all medical schools in the United Kingdom through the British Medical School Council (n = 32). We also distributed the survey through social media. Results. A total of 765 students read the information sheet and 619 completed the survey. Average age was 24, 69% were female. Mean SDM knowledge score was 83.6% (range = 18.8% to 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 84.5%). US students had the highest knowledge scores (86.2%, 95% CI = 84.8% to 87.6%). The mean risk communication score was 57.4% (range = 0% to 100%; 95% CI = 57.4% to 60.1%). Knowledge did not vary with age, race, gender, school, or school year. Attitudes were positive, except 46% believed SDM could only be done with higher educated patients, and 80.9% disagreed that physician payment should be linked to SDM performance (increased with years in training, P < 0.05). Attitudes did not vary due to any tested variable. Students indicated they were more likely than experienced clinicians to practice SDM (72.1% v. 48.8%). A total of 74.7% reported prior SDM training and 82.8% were interested in learning more about SDM. Discussion. SDM knowledge is high among medical students in all four countries. Risk communication is less well understood. Attitudes indicate that further research is needed to understand how medical schools deliver and integrate SDM training into existing curricula.

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process.

Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.

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

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.

Strategies for distributing cancer screening decision aids in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to facilitate shared decision making about cancer screening. However, little data exist on optimal strategies for dissemination. Our objective was to compare different decision aid distribution models. METHODS: Eligible patients received video decision aids for prostate cancer (PSA) or colon cancer screening (CRC) through 4 distribution methods. Outcome measures included DA loans (N), % of eligible patients receiving DA, and patient and provider satisfaction. RESULTS: Automatically mailing DAs to all age/gender appropriate patients led to near universal receipt by screening-eligible patients, but also led to ineligible patients receiving DAs. Three different elective (non-automatic) strategies led to low rates of receipt. Clinician satisfaction was higher when patients viewed the DA before the visit, and this model facilitated implementation of the screening choice. Regardless of timing or distribution method, patient satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: An automatic DA distribution method is more effective than relying on individual initiative. Enabling patients to view the DA before the visit is preferred. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Systematically offering DAs to all eligible patients before their appointments is the ideal strategy, but may be challenging to implement.

Integrating practice-based learning and improvement into medical student learning: evaluating complex curricular innovations.

BACKGROUND: Because practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) is a core competency for residents, the fundamentals of PBLI should be developed in medical school. PURPOSE: Evaluate the effects of a PBLI module for 1st-year students at Dartmouth Medical School in 2004-05. METHODS: Design. Randomized two-group trial (early and late intervention). Intervention. One half of students received the standard curriculum--reviewing student-patient-preceptor reports with their small-group facilitator and student colleagues. The other half received the PBLI-DMEDS module--reviewing student-patient-preceptor reports and applying PBLI methods to history and physical exam skills. ANALYSIS: The module was assessed on (a) core learning of PBLI (pre- and postmodule); (b) student self-assessed proficiency in PBLI (pre- and postmodule); (c) student, faculty, and course leaders' satisfaction; and (d) time costs. RESULTS: Pretest PBLI knowledge scores were similar in both groups; intervention students scored significantly higher after the PBLI-DMEDS module. satisfaction of students, faculty, and course leaders was mixed. the time cost required to implement the module was excessive. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention effectively taught the basics of PBLI but did not integrate well into the core curriculum. Our multifaceted evaluation approach allowed us to amplify aspects of the intervention that worked well and discard those that did not.

Preclinical preceptorships in medical school: can curricular objectives be met in diverse teaching settings?

BACKGROUND: Although preclinical preceptorships for medical students during the first 2 years are now common, little is known about how well the curricular objectives can be met in clinical training sites. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether a clinical encounter system can help align preclinical preceptorship experiences with the core curriculum. METHODS: Using a PDA documentation system, 27 students collected student-preceptor-patient encounter information on all patients (N = 2,953) during a 2-year clinical training course. We compared Years 1 and 2 teaching and learning processes, common symptoms seen, and counseling skills performed and examined how well these clinical experiences aligned with the curricular goals. RESULTS: The majority of encounters in Year 1 involved the student observing the preceptor perform a history (47%) or physical exam (40%). In Year 2, there was a shift to student and preceptor both participating in the history (Year 1, 12%; Year 2, 24%; p = .004) and physical exam (Year 1, 34%; Year 2, 47%; p = .002). Cardiovascular; pulmonary; and head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat examinations were most common in Year 1 and increased in Year 2. Genitourinary, gynecologic, and neurological examinations occurred least often, and only the neurological examinations increased significantly in Year 2. Overall, at least 75% of students could find opportunities in Years 1 and 2 to achieve the majority of curricular goals. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing what students experience at their preceptor sites is vital for clinical skills course evaluation. Student-preceptor-patient encounter data should be used to complement other course evaluations to aid curriculum planning and decrease variability in student experiences.