Decision Coaching to Support Shared Decision Making: A Framework, Evidence, and Implications for Nursing Practice, Education, and Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with values-sensitive health decisions frequently experience decisional conflict and require support. Decision coaching shows promise but little is known about the fit within the therapeutic relationship and factors influencing implementation of decision coaching in practice. AIMS: To offer an evidence-based decision coaching framework and explore implications for competency development and environmental infrastructures needed to facilitate client-centered decision coaching. METHODS: A review of the evidence and our experience supporting the development of a framework for decision coach-mediated shared decision making that outlines the roles of the primary practitioner, the patient, and decision coach for achieving high-quality health decisions. IMPLICATIONS: Competence in providing decision coaching requires knowledge and skill building at both pre- and post-licensure levels. Practice environments, regulatory bodies, educational systems, and professional and accreditation organizations are vital to successful integration of decision coaching skills into practice. Practical, visible, accessible, evidence-based, and equitably enforced regulations and policies endorsing patients' decision support interventions are essential. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing nurses' coaching skills for supporting patients and their families in decision making can be fostered through interventions aimed at the nurses, educational systems, and regulatory organizations. Further research and pragmatic evaluation are needed to better support the acquisition and implementation of decision coaching for all types of health decisions. APPLICATION TO NURSING PRACTICE: The framework indicates the practitioner's role in diagnosing the problem, providing options, and screening for decisional conflict. Decision coaching involves assessing factors influencing patients' decisional conflict, providing support to address decisional needs, monitoring progress in decision making, and screening for factors influencing implementation. Informed patients share their values and preferences shaped by their personal situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".