Exploring Shared Decision Making Training in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Vanessa I Orellana Villazon, Jennifer E deSante-Bertkau, Noah Smith, Melissa Previtera, Ellen A Lipstein
{"title":"Exploring Shared Decision Making Training in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Vanessa I Orellana Villazon, Jennifer E deSante-Bertkau, Noah Smith, Melissa Previtera, Ellen A Lipstein","doi":"10.1016/j.acap.2025.102805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Shared Decision Making (SDM) is crucial in pediatric care, but its implementation poses unique challenges. Training healthcare professionals in pediatric SDM is essential, yet little is known about the current state of these training programs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Review existing pediatric-specific SDM training programs to understand the current state of training and identify areas for improvement.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Education Research Complete, and LILACS.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included original research publications in English, Spanish, and German that focused on SDM training involving pediatric healthcare professionals or evaluated SDM training within pediatric settings.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>We used a custom Covidence template to extract data on publication year, author, SDM focus, participants, curriculum design, teaching strategies, evaluated outcomes, and how the curriculum incorporated children's participation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most programs were from North America and published after 2018. Training approaches varied widely, with many focusing on specific clinical contexts. Only two curricula explicitly considered children as participants in the SDM process. Evaluation methods and outcomes varied across Kirkpatrick levels, with most programs reporting positive results in participant satisfaction, skill improvement and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Only papers in English, Spanish, and German were included in the search.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While progress has been made in developing pediatric SDM training programs, there is a need for more consistency in content and evaluation methods. Future pediatric SDM training programs should prepare healthcare professionals with the skills necessary to involve children in the SDM process when appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":50930,"journal":{"name":"Academic Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"102805"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2025.102805","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is crucial in pediatric care, but its implementation poses unique challenges. Training healthcare professionals in pediatric SDM is essential, yet little is known about the current state of these training programs.

Objective: Review existing pediatric-specific SDM training programs to understand the current state of training and identify areas for improvement.

Data sources: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Education Research Complete, and LILACS.

Eligibility criteria: We included original research publications in English, Spanish, and German that focused on SDM training involving pediatric healthcare professionals or evaluated SDM training within pediatric settings.

Data extraction: We used a custom Covidence template to extract data on publication year, author, SDM focus, participants, curriculum design, teaching strategies, evaluated outcomes, and how the curriculum incorporated children's participation.

Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most programs were from North America and published after 2018. Training approaches varied widely, with many focusing on specific clinical contexts. Only two curricula explicitly considered children as participants in the SDM process. Evaluation methods and outcomes varied across Kirkpatrick levels, with most programs reporting positive results in participant satisfaction, skill improvement and patient outcomes.

Limitations: Only papers in English, Spanish, and German were included in the search.

Conclusions: While progress has been made in developing pediatric SDM training programs, there is a need for more consistency in content and evaluation methods. Future pediatric SDM training programs should prepare healthcare professionals with the skills necessary to involve children in the SDM process when appropriate.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Pediatrics
Academic Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.90%
发文量
300
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Academic Pediatrics, the official journal of the Academic Pediatric Association, is a peer-reviewed publication whose purpose is to strengthen the research and educational base of academic general pediatrics. The journal provides leadership in pediatric education, research, patient care and advocacy. Content areas include pediatric education, emergency medicine, injury, abuse, behavioral pediatrics, holistic medicine, child health services and health policy,and the environment. The journal provides an active forum for the presentation of pediatric educational research in diverse settings, involving medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing professionals. The journal also emphasizes important research relating to the quality of child health care, health care policy, and the organization of child health services. It also includes systematic reviews of primary care interventions and important methodologic papers to aid research in child health and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信