2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development, implementation, and evaluation of a curriculum for medical students on conflicts of interest and communicating risk Translated title: Entwicklung, Implementierung und Evaluation eines Curriculums zu Risikokommunikation und Interessenkonflikten für Studierende der Humanmedizin

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Insufficient risk competence of physicians, conflicts of interests from interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and the often distorted presentation of benefits and risks of therapies compromise the advising of patients by physicians in the framework of shared decision-making. An important cause of this is that teaching on this subject is mostly lacking, or fragmented when it does take place [ 1], [ 2], [ 3], [ 4]. Even though the German National Competence-Based Catalog of Learning Goals in Medicine defines learning goals on the topics of conflicts of interest and communication of risk, there are no classes that integrate both topics. Our goal was to develop a model curriculum to teach conflicts of interest and communication of risk that would integrate statistical know-how, communicational competency on the presentation of benefits and risks, and the meaning and management of conflicts of interest.

          Project Description: The development of the curriculum took place according to the six-step cycle of Kern et al [ 5]. An integrated curriculum was conceptualized, piloted, and adapted with the support of experts for the topics of shared decision-making, conflicts of interest, and communication of risk. The final version of the curriculum was implemented at the medical schools of Mainz and Heidelberg and evaluated by the students.

          Results: The final curriculum consists of 19 lesson units. The contents are the fundamentals of statistics, theory of risk communication, practical exercises on communication of risk, and the fundamentals of the mechanisms of effect of conflicts of interest, recognition of distortions in data, and introductions to professional management of conflicts of interest. The course was implemented three times at two different medical schools with a total of 32 students, and it was positively rated by most of the 27 participating students who evaluated it on the 1-6 German school grading scale (mean: 1.4; SD: 0.49; range: 1-2).

          Discussion: The curriculum we developed fills a gap in the current medical education. The innovative concept, which sensibly connects the transmission of theory and practice, was positively received by the students. The next steps are an evaluation of the curriculum by means of a two-center randomized study and the implementation at German and international medical schools. The process should be accompanied by continuous evaluation and further improvement.

          Zusammenfassung

          Hintergrund: Mangelnde Risikokompetenz von Ärzt*innen, Interessenkonflikte aus Interaktionen mit pharmazeutischen Unternehmen und die häufig verzerrte Darstellung zu Nutzen und Risiken von Therapien beeinträchtigen die Beratung von Patient*innen durch Ärzt*innen im Rahmen der partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung. Eine wichtige Ursache ist die größtenteils fehlende und, wo vorhanden, nur fragmentierte Lehre zur Thematik [ 1], [ 2], [ 3], [ 4]. Trotz der im Nationalen kompetenzbasierten Lernzielkatalog Medizin (NKLM) in Deutschland definierten Lernziele zu den Themenbereichen Risikokommunikation und Interessenkonflikte fehlen Lehrveranstaltungen, die beide Bereiche integrieren.

          Ziel war die Entwicklung eines Mustercurriculums für die Lehre von Risikokommunikation und Interessenkonflikten, das statistisches Know-how, Kommunikationskompetenz zur Darstellung von Nutzen und Risiken sowie die Bedeutung und den Umgang mit Interessenkonflikten vereint.

          Projektbeschreibung: Die Entwicklung des Curriculums erfolgte nach dem 6-schrittigen Zyklus von Kern et al. [ 5]. Mit Unterstützung durch Experten für die Themenbereiche partizipative Entscheidungsfindung, Risikokommunikation und Interessenkonflikte wurde ein integriertes Curriculum konzipiert, pilotiert und adaptiert. Die Endversion des Curriculums wurde an denmedizinischen Fakultäten Mainz und Heidelberg implementiert und durch Studierende evaluiert.

          Ergebnisse: Das endgültige Curriculum besteht aus 19 Unterrichtseinheiten. Inhalte sind Grundlagen der Statistik, Theorie der Risikokommunikation, praktische Übungen zur Risikokommunikation sowie Grundlagen zu den Wirkmechanismen von Interessenkonflikten, Erkennung von Verzerrungen in Daten und Anleitungen zum professionellen Umgang mit Interessenkonflikten. Es wurde drei Mal an zwei unterschiedlichen Fakultäten mit insgesamt 32 Studierenden implementiert und durch die teilnehmenden Studierenden überwiegend positiv evaluiert (Schulnote 1,4; N=27; SD=0,49; Range=1-2).

          Diskussion: Das von uns entwickelte Curriculum schließt eine Lücke in der derzeitigen medizinischen Lehre. Das innovative Konzept, welches die Vermittlung von Theorie und Praxis sinnvoll verknüpft, wurde von den Studierenden positiv angenommen. Die nächsten Schritte sind eine Überprüfung der Wirksamkeit des Curriculums mittels einer bizentrischen randomisierten Studie sowie die Implementierung an deutschen und internationalen Fakultäten. Der Prozess sollte von einer kontinuierlichen Evaluation und weiteren Verbesserung des Curriculums begleitet werden.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding financial conflicts of interest.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

              Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice. To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument). At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies. The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention. The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                GMS J Med Educ
                GMS J Med Educ
                GMS J Med Educ
                GMS Journal for Medical Education
                German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
                2366-5017
                17 February 2020
                2020
                : 37
                : 1
                : Doc3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Medical and Pharmaceutical Examination Questions, Mainz, Germany
                [2 ]University Hospital of Mainz, Department of Psychiatry, Mainz, Germany
                [3 ]University Hospital of Heidelberg, Chest Clinic, Heidelberg, Germany
                Author notes
                *To whom correspondence should be addressed: Nadine Dreimüller, University Hospital of Mainz, Department of Psychiatry, Untere Zahlbacher Str. 8, D-55131 Mainz, Germany, E-mail: nadine.dreimüller@ 123456unimedizin-mainz.de
                Article
                zma001296 Doc3 urn:nbn:de:0183-zma0012966
                10.3205/zma001296
                7105765
                32270017
                e7e7533e-5720-4a1a-8d03-2a612f78c5cd
                Copyright © 2020 Deis et al.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 March 2019
                : 14 October 2019
                : 06 September 2019
                Categories
                Article

                communication of risks,conflicts of interest,risk competence,curriculum development,shared decision-making

                Comments

                Comment on this article