Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT06062940

SHARE Approach Evaluation

The SHARE Approach Evaluation study was meant to evaluate the SHARE Approach, designed by AHRQ and updated by UCD. The SHARE Approach is a training program for clinicians on shared decision making.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Shared Decision Making

Age range

18 year–89 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Observational

Primary location

University of Colorado

Aurora, Colorado, 80045, United States

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

SHARE Approach

Behavioral

The SHARE Approach training was given at each of these centers, teaching skills to clinicians about shared decision making.

Primary outcomes

  1. Clinician training evaluation: Confidence in ability to do shared decision making

    Time frame: pre-training, post-training, 2-month follow-up

    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.

  2. Clinician training evaluation: Confidence in understanding what shared decision making is

    Time frame: pre-training, 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.

  3. Card survey: Clinician satisfaction with encounter

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

  4. Card survey: Patient satisfaction with encounter

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

  5. Card survey: Clinician shared decision making (self-reported)

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

  6. Card survey: Patient shared decision making (self-reported)

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

  7. Audio recordings: Shared Decision Making (highest score of topics discussed)

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

  8. Clinician training evaluation: Overall evaluation of the SHARE training

    Time frame: post-training

    clinicians answered the question: Overall, what was your experience of the training you received today. Likert rating scale was "Very positive" to "Very negative"

Secondary outcomes

  1. Shared Decision Making (total score)

    Time frame: pre-training, 1 month post-training, 6 month follow-up

    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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Colorado, Denver

Other

Collaborators

  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2023
Study completion
2023
First posted
Oct 2, 2023
Registry last updated
Aug 9, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.