SHARE Approach Evaluation
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
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.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
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 Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | 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.
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Usefulness of the SHARE Approach training [up to 1 day post-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.
- Usefulness of the SHARE Approach training [2 months post-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.
- Ability to engage in shared decision making [up to 1 day post-training]
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.
- Ability to engage in shared decision making [2 months post-training]
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.
- Overall evaluation of the SHARE Approach [up to 1 day post-training]
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.
- Overall evaluation of the SHARE Approach [2 months post-training]
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.
- Confidence in doing shared decision making [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Confidence in doing shared decision making [2 months post-training]
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.
- Confidence in doing shared decision making [up to 6 months post-training]
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.
- Confidence in understanding shared decision making [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Confidence in understanding shared decision making [up to 6 months post-training]
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.
- Clinician satisfaction with encounter [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Clinician satisfaction with encounter [up to 6 months post-training]
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.
- Patient satisfaction with encounter [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Patient satisfaction with encounter [up to 6 months post-training]
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.
- Clinician shared decision making (self-reported) [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Clinician shared decision making (self-reported) [up to 24 hours post-training]
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.
- Clinician shared decision making (self-reported) [2 months post-training]
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.
- Patient shared decision making (self-reported) [up to 6 months pre-training]
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.
- Patient shared decision making (self-reported) [up to 24 hours post-training]
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.
- Patient shared decision making (self-reported) [2 months post-training]
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.
- Shared Decision Making (highest score) [At clinic visit, up to 12 months post-training]
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.
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Shared Decision Making (total score) [At clinic visit, up to 12 months post-training]
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.
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
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
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Colorado | Aurora | Colorado | United States | 80045 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- University of Colorado, Denver
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Laura Scherer, PhD, University of Colorado, Denver
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
None provided.- 19-3053