056 Effectiveness of shared decision-making training programs for health care professionals using reflexivity strategies: secondary analysis of a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Training healthcare professionals stands out as a promising intervention to foster Shared decision Making (SDM) adoption. However, the most effective type of SDM training remains unclear. We aimed to identify SDM training programs that included reflexivity strategies and were assessed as effective and to explore whether further factors can be associated with their effectiveness. Methods From our Cochrane review (2018), we extracted training programs targeting healthcare professionals and identified those that used reflexivity strategies. Those identified were further categorized according to the type of strategy used. We then identified the proportion of programs that were classified as effective and compared them by categories. In addition, we compared programs using peer-to-peer group learning with those with an interprofessional orientation in term of effectiveness. Results Of the 31 training programs extracted, 24 (77%) were interactive, 7 (23%) were unidirectional. Of the interactive programs, 10 (42%) were deemed effective, as opposed to 1 unidirectional program (14%). Of the 24 interactive programs, 7 (29%) integrated reflexivity strategies, of which 5 (71%) utilized a peer-to-peer group learning approach, 3 (60%) of them were effective. The other two programs used a self-appraisal individual learning strategy, neither of which was effective. Five out of the 31 programs had an interprofessional orientation, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the remaining 26 (84%) of the 31 programs were without interprofessional orientation, among which 8 (31%) were effective. Discussion Our findings suggest a higher efficacy rate for reflexivity-based training programs. Peer-to-peer group learning strategies appear more effective than self-appraisals. The combination of reflexivity strategies with an interprofessional orientation yields better outcomes. Conclusion This study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training programs incorporating reflexivity strategies. Results pave the way for enhancing future SDM training based on reflexivity.
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 | 0.044 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".