Development and preliminary evaluation of a decision coach training module for nurses in Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative patient-centred process for arriving at informed healthcare decisions. Decision coaching can help support SDM when combined with patient decision aids. As part of a meta-curriculum “Ready for SDM” for training different healthcare professionals in SDM, we developed and pilot-tested a new module designed to train nurses as decision coaches. The study assessed nurses' perceptions of a decision coach training module, focusing on its feasibility, acceptability and its role in developing decision coaching capabilities. Methods We used a two-phase approach guided by the Knowledge-to-Action Framework. In the first phase, we developed a decision coach training module. The second phase involved preliminary testing, using a descriptive design with qualitative and quantitative methods. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two hospitals. Participants completed questionnaires at the end of Part A (classroom training). The assessment was informed by Kirkpatrick’s first three levels of educational outcomes: reaction (acceptability), learning (self-reported attitudes, intentions and confidence) and behaviour (practical application of decision coaching). A post-hoc inquiry investigated low participation in Part B of the coach training. Qualitative data underwent content analysis and quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results The development resulted in a decision coach training comprising a Part A (6 h) on SDM and decision coaching fundamentals and a Part B (1 h) which involved practical application of decision coaching in the participants’ own practice (audio recorded) with self-appraisal and individualised feedback. In preliminary testing with 19 nurses from seven clinical departments, 90% of participants rated Part A as acceptable and relevant to practice. Only one nurse completed Part B due to reluctance to audio record coaching sessions. The most reported perceived barrier was time constraints. Key perceived facilitators identified were interprofessional collaboration, management support and additional practical training. Conclusion Decision coach training was feasible to deliver in the classroom. Participants reported Part A as acceptable and relevant to their practice. The second part, including an audio recording component, proved unfeasible. Further research should explore alternative methods for skill assessment and feedback in clinical practice. The results from this study will inform further refinement of the Norwegian Ready for SDM meta-curriculum and implementation strategies, particularly regarding the practical training components. Trial registration Retrospectively registered (14.02.2023) at ISRCTN (ISRCTN44143097).
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".