TY - JOUR T1 - Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies JF - BMJ Open JO - BMJ Open DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026488 VL - 9 IS - 6 SP - e026488 AU - Evamaria Müller AU - Alena Strukava AU - Isabelle Scholl AU - Martin Härter AU - Ndeye Thiab Diouf AU - France Légaré AU - Angela Buchholz Y1 - 2019/06/01 UR - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e026488.abstract N2 - Design and objectives We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.Setting and participants HCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.Methods We searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.Results Out of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick’s levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.Conclusions Strategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.PROSPERO registration number CRD42016041623. ER -