Next Article in Journal
Predictors of Parental Recall of Newborn Hearing Screening Program in Saudi Arabia
Next Article in Special Issue
Correction: Goto, Y.; Miura, H. Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1356
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Related to Depression According to the Degree of Loneliness in Adolescents with Severe Friend-Relationship Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/healthcare11091356
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Correction published on 26 July 2023, see Healthcare 2023, 11(15), 2138.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study

by
Yuko Goto
* and
Hisayuki Miura
Department of Home Care and Regional Liaison Promotion, Hospital, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu 474-8511, Aichi, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(9), 1356; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091356
Submission received: 22 February 2023 / Revised: 20 March 2023 / Accepted: 6 May 2023 / Published: 8 May 2023 / Corrected: 26 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Perspectives in Family Medicine and Primary Care of Older People)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Aim: This study evaluated an advanced care planning (ACP) training program incorporating online skills in shared decision making (SDM). Method: The New World Kirkpatrick Model was employed to assess the efficacy of the training program at four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Reaction measured the participants’ satisfaction and difficulty with the training program alongside the status of support received from workplaces engaging in ACP. Learning evaluated the changes in SDM skills. Behavior assessed the changes in the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals when the latter were involved in the SDM process. Results evaluated whether the participants were willing to participate in ACP educational programs as a facilitator and whether their motivation for continuous learning changed through throughout the training program. The relationships among patients, healthcare providers, and third-party roles were analyzed in SDM role-playing via structural equation modeling (SEM). Results: Between September 2020 and June 2022, 145 multidisciplinary participants completed the entirety of the training program. The most common responses to the training were “satisfied”, “slightly difficult”, and “I received some support from my workplace”. The SDM skills significantly improved from the first to the third workshop, evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. In the first workshop, SDM was primarily performed by healthcare providers; however, in the third workshop, patient-centered SDM was adopted. Of the participants who completed the program, 63% intended to participate in future ACP educational programs as ACP education facilitators. Conclusion: This study ascertained the validity of this training.

1. Introduction

As the population ages, a Western concept of advanced care planning (ACP) has increasingly garnered attention in Japan [1,2,3]. Amid such circumstances, demand has been increasing for ACP programs that help the trainee understand ACP, acquire decision-making support skills, and achieve behavior modification conducive to practicing ACP. Moreover, healthcare professionals (HCPs) found it challenging to conduct face-to-face or group training sessions owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, which further highlighted the need to develop behavior-modifying training programs that allow the trainee to acquire decision-making support skills and learn ACP practices online.
The older adult population has been increasing globally, society has been evolving, and patients now have increasingly diverse values and options regarding treatment and therapy. ACP has been born out of the need to accommodate such changes and continues to evolve. Globally, ACP has been considered synonymous with completing advanced directives; however, recently, the core concept of ACP is regarded as a process of discussing medical and care matters with HCPs, such as physicians and trusted individuals. In addition, in around 2000, ACP was primarily performed for patients with tumor diseases; however, more recently, it is being performed for patients with various chronic diseases [4,5,6,7].
In Japan, the steady increase in the older population has finally led the public to recognize the importance of ACP in recent years. To disseminate the concept, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare nicknamed ACP “JINSEI KAIGI” (meaning life consultation) [8]. To make it better understood by the public, this “JINSEI KAIGI” is defined as “an effort to think beforehand about your desired medical treatment and healthcare choices in case of an emergency and repeatedly talk about and share those choices with your family and medical/healthcare professionals” [9]. In 2018, the “Guidelines for Decision Making about End-of-Life Care” [10] were revised to incorporate the concepts of ACP and shared decision making (SDM), thereby promoting the dissemination of the concept of end-of-life decision-making support. As stated above, demand has been growing for ACP training programs that help the trainee understand ACP, acquire decision-making support skills, and achieve behavior modification conducive to practicing ACP [11,12]. To meet this demand, the authors have been developing and evaluating face-to-face ACP training programs [13]. The outcomes of the ACP education program training have been evaluated primarily as trainee-related outcomes, including ACP knowledge, ability, and skills [14]; moreover, the in-person training program developed by us confirmed that the participants improved their SDM skills and changed their behavior with regard to ACP practice [13].
In Japan, multiple COVID-19 emergencies were declared in 2020 and 2021. Furthermore, a movement was implemented encouraging citizens to refrain from going out, thoroughly practicing “Social Distancing”, and avoid coming into contact with others. Thus, in-person training could not be held [15]. Therefore, the current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated online (instead of in-person) ACP training programs that are equally effective.
The need to develop online training programs for HCPs has been recognized not only in Japan but also worldwide amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and various challenges have surfaced owing to the rapid digitalization of education [16,17,18,19,20,21].
With the increase in demand for online training owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, studies have concurrently reported training programs with demonstrated effects on behavior modification in HCPs [22,23]. SDM is a decision-support skill that emphasizes interactive communication between patients and professionals [24]. In palliative care (PC), which is conceptually similar to ACP, such ACP training programs use digital tools to encourage participants to hold conversations [25,26].
SDM is considered the pinnacle of patient-centered care [27] and contributes to decision making based on individual values for patients with various senses of worth [28]. Furthermore, SDM reportedly promoted dialogue between patients and professionals, filled an information gap regarding treatment and care options, improved patient satisfaction [29], improved adherence to and extended continued treatment [30,31], and decreased confrontations between patients and professionals, including litigation [32,33]. Meanwhile, patriarchal and familistic tendencies have been noted in Far East Asian countries, including Japan [34]. The familistic culture has been confirmed to reduce the degree of sharing in SDM [35]. This further highlights the importance of providing a thorough education to acquire SDM skills in Japan. SDM is a methodology for patient-centered decision support, and ACP is a process that helps the selection of treatment preferences and goals based on patient values [7]. With regard to the decision-support methods in the ACP process, instead of paternalistic or informed decisions, SDM alongside interaction between HCPs and patients centered on patient values constitutes the best choice [36].
Recently, we developed an online ACP training program incorporating skill training based on a previously developed face-to-face ACP training program [13] and implemented a training course. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this training program using the New World Kirkpatrick Model [37,38,39,40], which is used to evaluate medical and educational programs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This is a preintervention and postintervention comparative study. The intervention was educational and included three workshops. We used the SDM measurements that were immediately recorded after role-playing at the first and third workshops and the data obtained from the questionnaires related to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (except SDM measurement) that were administered after each workshop.

2.2. SDM Measurements Used

SDM-Q-9 Japanese [41], SDM-Q-Doc Japanese [42], SDM-C Japanese (patient) [43], and SDM-C Japanese (care staff) [43] are SDM measurements available in Japanese that were created based on SDM-Q-9 [44]/SDM-Q-Doc [45] developed by a team at the Department of Medical Psychology of the University of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. These SDM measurements allow physicians, HCPs, and patients to evaluate processes to decide on treatment and care options using nine question items. These SDM measurements have sections that let the respondent write the reasons and results of their decision making. The respondent is asked to answer the nine questions on a 6-point Likert scale (ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”).

2.3. Settings and Data Collection

The “Training on Shared Decision-making Competency in Advance Care Planning” program was based on a previously implemented in-person program [6]. However, as several participants were unfamiliar with online training, three short workshops were organized and incorporated into the online training program. In addition to the three online workshops, the online program included one preliminary e-learning session and two homework submissions over 6 months (Table 1).
The SDM measurement data were entered by the participants immediately after role-playing at the O1 and O3 workshop, which the participants took ~5 min to complete. These data were transcribed by training facilitators who listened to the measurement results of the participants. The training facilitators subsequently submitted the transcribed data to our researchers. The transcribed SDM measurement data were then converted into electronic data by information technicians who were not directly involved in this study.
Data from the questionnaires related to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (except SDM measurement) administered immediately after the three workshops (O1, O2, and O3, respectively) were collected online via an electronic questionnaire form. The organizers at the training sites provided the URL of the electronic questionnaire form to the participants and collected the questionnaire data online. The collected data were subsequently submitted to our researchers and used in this study.

2.4. Participants and Ethical Considerations

The data used in this study were collected from the participants of the “Training on Shared Decision-making Competency in Advance Care Planning” program that was sponsored and organized by six training sites between September 2020 and June 2022. The participants were HCPs in medicine, nursing, and welfare who were engaged in patients’ decision making in the clinical setting and potential future leaders in promoting ACP. They were recruited at each training site, which were hospitals and local governments in medium-sized cities and rural areas.
A common inclusion criterion for trainees is that participants must be qualified professionals involved in medical, nursing, and social welfare. The exclusion criterion includes those who do not belong to a clinical setting practicing ACP.
The reason for the inclusion criterion was that this training was intended for those who had received basic training in clinical ethics to practice ACP. The reason for the exclusion criterion was that as this training program was aimed at practicing ACP in clinical settings, the trainees had to be limited to those who worked in a field where ACP could be applied. At these six training sites, both physicians supporting decision making in treatment and healthcare specialists supporting decision making in healthcare participated in the workshops.
Each of the six training sites had its own rules for enrolling participants. Some sites recruited HCPs from within as well as outside their organization, whereas others recruited HCPs in specific sectors, such as PC. Before the workshops, the participants were informed that the data entered into worksheets during the workshops and the questionnaire data collected after the workshops would be used for evaluating the training program.
In this study, two data types were collected from each participant and analyzed. The first was the data on SDM measurements that were registered during the workshops. The second was the data on the questionnaire results that were written shortly after the three workshops. All data were anonymous.
The training was provided as an education rather than as research. To evaluate the quality of this program, we informed the sites that the program would be evaluated using the training data after the completion of the training and confirmed their intention to participate as training sites. The workshop and questionnaire data of the participants during this training were collected by the six training sites and training facilitators and shared with our researchers after removing personally identifiable information. The participants received an explanation for the use of the workshop data submitted by the participants before every workshop for program evaluation. During nearly 8 months, including the preparation period for the recruitment of the trainees, the results of the analysis of the training data were explained to the trainees and training site personnel during the training sessions.
Before implementation, this study was subjected to strict conflict of interest and research ethics reviews by the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology: IRB Approval Code and Name of the Institution: Approval code: no. 1585 (5 April 2022) from the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology.

2.5. Evaluation Framework

This training program was evaluated using the New World Kirkpatrick Model [37,38,39,40], which has been applied to various adult education programs, such as medical education programs [46,47,48] and nursing education programs [49,50,51]. This model is structured to evaluate educational programs using four levels, as follows: Level 1 concerning reaction, Level 2, learning, Level 3, behavior, and Level 4, results. In this study, the evaluation items were training satisfaction/difficulty and support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP (Level 1), SDM skills (Level 2), changes in relationships between patients and professionals in SDM (Level 3), and willingness to participate in future ACP training as an educational assistant for continued learning (Level 4). The entirety of this training program was evaluated by visualizing how this training program affected the continued learning needs of the participant.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

From the O1 questionnaire results, the characteristics of the participants were summarized, and the training satisfaction/difficulty and support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP were itemized. The answers were returned on a 6-point Likert scale.
The data on SDM skills collected by the SDM measurements were calculated with “completely disagree” as 0 points and “completely agree” as 5 points. The 45-point scores were then multiplied by 20/9 to convert them into 100-point scores and summarized into descriptive statistics. For SDM skills, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test calculated differences between O1 and O3.
The required sample size was calculated to be 67 for both O1 and O3 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (α = 0.05, power of test = 0.8, two-sided test, and the effective dose was set moderately at d = 0.5).
Changes in relationships between patients and professionals in SDM were analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to confirm conceptual structures. The score from SDM1 to SDM9 is divided into the patient, provider, and third-party roles. The goodness of fit of the SEM was considered high when χ2 value (p > 0.05), the goodness of fit index (GFI) ≥ 0.9, the adjusted goodness of appropriate index (AGFI) ≥ 0.9, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.05, and comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.95.
Additionally, from the O1, O2, and O3 questionnaire results, changes in the participants’ perceptions were analyzed via SEM to confirm conceptual structures. The goodness of fit of the SEM was considered high when χ2 value (p > 0.05), GFI ≥ 0.9, AGFI ≥ 0.9, RMSEA ≤ 0.05, and CFI ≥ 0.95.
IBM SPSS Statistics 29 and IBM SPSS Amos Graphics 29 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) were used for statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Training Targets

This training program aimed to nurture human resources capable of practicing ACP by using SDM skills and providing education for promoting ACP. Accordingly, six training sites engaged in continued educational support publicly recruited participants who could offer education to promote ACP in local communities and organizations.

3.2. Participants’ Characteristics

At O1, the number of participants was 155, of whom 145 received a certificate of completion after finishing O3. The dropout rate was 6.5%.
A total of 153 questionnaire units were returned after O1. The participants’ professions (Table 2) and clinical experience years (Table 3) were itemized from these questionnaire results. By profession, the majority were nurses, accounting for about half of the participants, followed by physicians, medical social workers, care managers, and therapists. According to years of clinical experience, those with more than 25 years of experience accounted for 21%, and those with 15–19 years of experience and those with 20–24 years of experience each accounted for 20%. Overall, participants with varying years of clinical experience equally participated in this study.

3.3. Level 1 Reaction: Participants’ Satisfaction, Training Difficulty, and Support from the Participants’ Workplace in Practicing ACP

The reaction is evaluated at Level 1 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model. In this training program, the reaction evaluation items were the participants’ satisfaction after O1 (Table 4), training difficulty (Table 5), and support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP (Table 6).
Regarding the participants’ satisfaction, no respondents chose “not satisfied at all”. On the contrary, the most frequent and the second most frequent answers were “satisfied” and “very satisfied”, which were chosen by 55% and 23% of the respondents, respectively.
Regarding the training difficulty, the most frequent answer was “somewhat difficult”, chosen by 43%, which was followed by “difficult”, selected by 23%.
Regarding the support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP, the most frequent answer was “supported”, chosen by 35%, followed by “somewhat supported”, selected by 31%.

3.4. Level 2 Learning: SDM Skills

Learning is evaluated at Level 2 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
In this training, the learning results after O1 and O3 were itemized (Table 7).
The data on O1 and O3 were collected from 154 and 146 participants.
The Wilcoxon rank-sum test analyzed differences in the O1 and O3 results (Table 8).
The analysis showed that the SDM skills significantly improved in items SDM2, 3, 6, 8, and 9.

3.5. Level 3 Behavior: Changes in Relationships between Patients and Professionals in SDM

From the total score of SDM1 to SDM9, the relationships between patient, provider, and third-party roles in role-playing were analyzed by SEM. The results showed that the SDM at O1 was centered around the provider role (Figure 1). The model evaluation was χ2 = 0.031 (p = 0.861), GFI = 1.000, AGFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.000, and CFI = 1.000. In the SDM at O3, the relationship shifted to one centered around the patient role (Figure 2).
The model evaluation was χ2 = 0.005 (p = 0.946), GFI = 1.000, AGFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000, and CFI = 1.000.

3.6. Level 4 Result: Willingness to Work as an ACP Education Facilitator and the Impact of This Training Program on the Participants’ Continued Learning Needs

Of the 145 participants who completed the program, 91 (63%) expressed willingness to participate in future online workshops and engage in educational activities for new trainees.
Moreover, from the questionnaire results after O1, O2, and O3, the impact of this training program on the participants’ continued learning needs was visualized, and factors for causing continued learning needs in the participants were analyzed using SEM (Figure 3).
“Support from the workplace in learning ACP” led to “confidence in ACP practice”. Then, “training difficulty” led to “applicability of training content” and affected “training satisfaction”. Finally, the “need to continue learning ACP” was recognized, thereby increasing the awareness of “ACP practice by others” and “ACP-related information” listed in medical records, etc. The model’s goodness of fit was χ2 = 21.1 (p = 0.222), RMSEA = 0.023, and CFI = 0986.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study in Japan that developed and evaluated an ACP training program incorporating online SDM skill training. The evaluation was performed up to Level 4 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, and the results demonstrated the validity of this training program in nurturing human resources promoting ACP.

4.1. Evaluation by the New World Kirkpatrick Model at Different Levels

4.1.1. Level 1 Reaction: Participants’ Satisfaction, Training Difficulty, and Support from the Participants’ Workplace in Practicing ACP

At Level 1, whether the content of the training program was acceptable to the participants was evaluated. Regarding the participants’ satisfaction, the most frequent answer was “satisfied”, and regarding the difficulty, the most frequent response was “somewhat difficult”. This indicated that the training program was perceived as moderately difficult by the participants and that the participants were satisfied with that difficulty level. Regarding the support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP, most participants responded that they were “supported”. Accordingly, it was highly probable that many participants worked in an environment where they could fully use the things they learned in this program. These results corroborated the valid training program in terms of reaction (Level 1).

4.1.2. Level 2 Learning: SDM Skills

At Level 2, the improvement in SDM skills was evaluated. Among the three workshops, changes in the SDM measurement score were assessed at the first (O1) and third (O3) workshops, and significant improvement was noted in five of the nine items (SDM2, 3, 6, 8, and 9). This indicated that the SDM skill training significantly improved the SDM skills of the participants. Specifically, significant improvement in skills was observed in the following items: SDM2 “formulation of equality of partners”, SDM3 “presentation of treatment options”, SDM6 “identification of both parties’ understanding”, SDM8 “reaching a shared decision”, and SDM9 “arrangement of follow-up” [44]. However, regarding the skill items that did not achieve significant improvement in this skill training (SDM1 “disclosure that a decision needs to be made”, SDM4 “informing of the benefits and risks of the options”, SDM5 “investigation of patients’ understanding and expectations”, and SDM7 “negotiation”) [44], it is necessary to clarify challenges toward further qualitative improvements in the skills and have the participants undergo continued skill training. In particular, given that SDM4 “informing of the benefits and risks of the options” and SDM7 “negotiation” are essential factors in patient-centered medicine and care [52], further continued learning is required.

4.1.3. Level 3 Behavior: Changes in Relationships between Patients and Professionals in SDM

The results of SDM in this training program revealed a shift in the relationship from the one centered around the specialist at O1 to the one centered around the patient at O3.
SDM is regarded as the pinnacle of patient-centered care [28], whose purpose is to support patients’ autonomy [53,54]. The intervention of this training program visualized the behavior modification of the participants in decision making. Herein, as the SDM measures were recorded immediately after each role-play, it was not possible to grasp how long this effect lasted. This is one of the limitations of this study. However, this suggested that the hypothesis that SDM is the pinnacle of patient-centered care could be similarly applied to the clinical setting in Japan.

4.1.4. Level 4 Result: Willingness to Work as an ACP Education Facilitator and the Impact of This Training Program on the Participants’ Continued Learning Needs

The purpose of this training program was to nurture future leaders in promoting ACP. If a participant who has completed the program expresses willingness to work as a facilitator or educational staff in future sessions, they are highly likely to act toward specific goals. When this happens, the purpose of this training program (human resource nurturing) is considered to have been achieved.
Of the 145 participants, 91 (63%) expressed willingness, whereas the remaining 37% did not. In light of this result, there is room for consideration regarding the result evaluation (Level 4). Since the lack of willingness to participate in future training sessions does not necessarily mean that the person is not qualified as a leader promoting ACP, more adjustments will be needed in future research, including reconsidering the evaluation items.
Meanwhile, when the entirety of this training program was comprehensively evaluated, and the factors affecting the participants’ perception about continued learning needs were searched, it was revealed that “support from the participants’ workplace in practicing ACP” led to “confidence in ACP practice” and “training satisfaction” as the training program progressed, thus affecting continuous learning needs. This indicates that it is essential to encourage the understanding of the workplace in ACP practice to “nurture future leaders in promoting ACP”. A previous study identified a lack of cooperation and understanding in the workplace as barriers to ACP practice [6]. Another study indicated that a lack of support obstructs ACP practice owing to environmental factors, such as insufficient legal and medical service fee systems [55]. Therefore, approaches to change workplace understanding and environment are critical for producing leaders promoting ACP. Hopefully, the participants nurtured in this training program will rejuvenate ACP activities in the future.
This training program has obtained understanding and cooperation from the training sites sponsoring the training, including local core hospitals and medical associations. These training sites are taking the initiative in nurturing human resources. This framework may be conducive to supporting ACP-promoting leaders who completed this program in their continued learning needs.

4.2. Significance of Developing an ACP Training Program Incorporating Online SDM Skill Training in Japan

Japan has the world’s highest percentage of senior citizens, accounting for approximately 30% [56]. The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare published the “Guidelines for medical and care decision-making processes at the end of life” [10], and the Japan Geriatric Society [57] and the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy [58] issued proposals and guidelines related to SDM and ACP. However, SDM skill training compatible with the characteristics of Japanese society is not domestically available. The mainstream of ACP training programs is primarily aimed at knowledge acquisition [59] and programs whose effectiveness has only been demonstrated for certain professions [60].
The major challenge in today’s Japan is the lack of opportunities for receiving SDM skill training. However, this effective online ACP training program, incorporating SDM skill training developed in this study, will provide opportunities for HCPs living in hard-to-access remote areas to participate in activities effectively. Furthermore, we believe this achievement is socially significant in today’s Japanese society.
Moreover, in many East Asian countries, including Japan, group decision making tends to be culturally more appreciated than individual decision making [61]. A preceding study indicated that the familism influenced by Confucianism weakens the SDM of patients with progressive cancer and clinicians engaged in end-of-life care [36]. Accommodating these conditions, some researchers have proposed Japanese versions of ACP definitions that promote family-centered decision making [62], showing a regressive trend contrary to patient-centered medical care. One of the factors behind this trend may be the lack of opportunities for learning SDM, which is regarded as the pinnacle of patient-centered medical care. Therefore, developing this effective ACP training program incorporating SDM skill training is highly significant for Japanese society.

4.3. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

Japan lags behind major Western countries in the availability of online infrastructure [63]. Numerous challenges have been pointed out in the educational setting for educators and students [64,65]. For example, one week before each workshop, training for online operations was provided to the medical institutions acting as study sites to prepare for online training management. This placed a heavier workload on them than face-to-face training management. Moreover, some participants had to cancel a course owing to network instability during the training. Since Japan is still developing online infrastructure, improvements are needed to disseminate online education widely. Presently, this is a limitation of online training in Japan.
Meanwhile, since the training sites in this study agreed to support the participants’ ACP practice after repeated coordination with our researchers, the participants recruited by these training sites may have been biased toward behavior modification, as observed in this study. However, as ACP is not well recognized in Japan [55,66], many organizations remain uncooperative toward ACP practice. Therefore, in the future, besides nurturing human resources, efforts to promote the understanding of ACP for such organizations should be made simultaneously. Otherwise, this training program will not function effectively in Japan. This is another limitation of this study.

5. Conclusions

This study developed an ACP training program incorporating online SDM skill training as an educational program for nurturing leaders promoting ACP. The New World Kirkpatrick Model ascertained the validity of this training program.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.G.; methodology, Y.G.; formal analysis, Y.G.; investigation, Y.G.; data curation, Y.G.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G. and H.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.G. and H.M.; visualization, H.M.; project administration, Y.G. and H.M.; funding acquisition, H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology (Research No. 22-18).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology Ethics Committee. Approval code: no. 1585 (5 April 2022) from the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the training sites (Konan Kosei Hospital, Support Center for Home Medical and Long-term Care Cooperation in Ama Medical Area, Aomori Prefectural Central Hospital, Kaita Hospital, Saku Central Hospital, and Okazaki City Hospital) that provided training data. We would also like to sincerely thank our ACP facilitators who graciously cooperated as educational assistants at the workshops.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sumita, M. The present state of advance care planning in Japan: Literature Review and Content Analysis in Advance Care Planning. J. Jpn. Assoc. Bioeth. 2015, 25, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Goto, Y.; Miura, H. Development of Japanese Advanced Care Planning in the Age of 100 Years of Life. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2021, 279, 510–515. [Google Scholar]
  3. McMillan, S.S.; Kendall, E.; Wheeler, A.J. Patient-centered Approaches to Health Care: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. SAGE J. 2013, 70, 567–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Houben, C.H.M.; Spruit, M.A.; Groenen, M.T.J.; Wouters, E.F.M.; Janssen, D.J.A. Efficacy of Advance Care Planning: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2014, 15, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dingfield, L.E.; Kayser, J.B. Integrating Advance Care Planning into Practice. Chest 2017, 151, 1387–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Monnet, F.; Pivodic, L.; Dupont, C.; Dröes, R.M.; Van den Block, L. Information on Advance Care Planning on Websites of Dementia Associations in Europe: A Content Analysis. Aging Ment. Health 2022, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sudore, R.L.; Lum, H.D.; You, J.J.; Hanson, L.C.; Meier, D.E.; Pantilat, S.Z.; Matlock, D.D.; Rietjens, J.A.C.; Korfage, I.J.; Ritchie, C.S.; et al. Defining Advance Care Planning for Adults: A Consensus Definition from a Multidisciplinary Delphi Panel. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017, 53, 821–832.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Nickname of ACP (Advance Care Planning) Has Been Decided as “Jinsei Kaigi”. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_02615.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  9. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Why Don’t You Have a “Jinsei Kaigi”? Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_02783.html (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  10. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Guidelines for Medical and Care Decision-Making Processes at the End of Life. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10800000-Iseikyoku/0000197721.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  11. Inagaki, A.; Takano, T.; Maiko Watanabe, N.; Yamamoto-Mitani, N. Exploring Factors of Advance Care Planning Practice among Community-dwelling Independent Older Adults: A Cross-sectional Study. J. Jpn. Soc. Emerg. Med. 2020, 23, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. The Japan Research Institute, Ltd. Subsidies for Promotion Expenses, etc. about Health Services for the Elderly 2019: Project for Promoting the Elderly Health Promotion. Investigative Research Project Report on Promotion of ACP in Elderly Housing. Available online: https://www.jri.co.jp/MediaLibrary/file/column/opinion/detail/20200410_theme72.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  13. Goto, Y.; Miura, H.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Onishi, J. Evaluation of an Advance Care Planning Training Program for Practice Professionals in Japan Incorporating Shared Decision Making Skills Training: A Prospective Study of a Curricular Intervention. BMC Palliat. Care 2022, 21, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chan, C.W.H.; Ng, N.H.Y.; Chan, H.Y.L.; Wong, M.M.H.; Chow, K.M. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Advance Care Planning Facilitators Training Programs. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ministry of International Affairs and Communication, Japan. Information and Communications in Japan WITH PAPER 2020. Available online: https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2020/chapter-2.pdf#page=6 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  16. Naciri, A.; Radid, M.; Kharbach, A.; Chemsi, G. E-learning in Health Professions Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2021, 18, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Nimavat, N.; Singh, S.; Fichadiya, N.; Sharma, P.; Patel, N.; Kumar, M.; Chauhan, G.; Pandit, N. Online Medical Education in India—Different Challenges and Probable Solutions in the Age of COVID-19. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2021, 12, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. López-Noguero, F.; Gallardo-López, J.A.; García-Lázaro, I. The Educational Community in the Face of COVID-19. Discursive Analysis on Vulnerability and Education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sorg, H.; Ehlers, J.P.; Sorg, C.G.G. Digitalization in Medicine: Are German Medical Students Well Prepared for the Future? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Vergara-Rodríguez, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á.; Fernández-Arias, P. Variables Influencing Professors’ Adaptation to Digital Learning Environments During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pérez-Sánchez, L.; Lavandera-Ponce, S.; Mora-Jaureguialde, B.; Martín-Cuadrado, A.M. Training Plan for the Continuity of Non-presential Education in Six Peruvian Universities During COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shaw, J.; Allison, K.; Cuddy, J.; Lindsay, T.; Grimison, P.; Shepherd, H.; Butow, P.; Shaw, T.; Baychek, K.; ADAPT Program Group; et al. Development, Acceptability and Uptake of an On-Line Communication Skills Education Program Targeting Challenging Conversations for Oncology Health Professionals Related to Identifying and Responding to Anxiety and Depression. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fang, J.T.; Chen, S.Y.; Yang, L.Y.; Liao, K.C.; Lin, C.H.; Fujimori, M.; Tang, W.R. Improving Transitional Care Through Online Communication Skills Training. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2022, 34, 3063–3071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Roodbeen, R.; Vreke, A.; Boland, G.; Rademakers, J.; van den Muijsenbergh, M.; Noordman, J.; van Dulmen, S. Communication and Shared Decision-making with Patients with Limited Health Literacy; Helpful Strategies, Barriers and Suggestions for Improvement Reported by Hospital-based Palliative Care Providers. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pereira, J.; Meadows, L.; Kljujic, D.; Strudsholm, T. Do Learners Implement What They Learn? Commitment-to-Change Following an Interprofessional Palliative Care Course. Palliat. Med. 2022, 36, 866–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pesut, B.; Thorne, S.; Huisken, A.; Wright, D.K.; Chambaere, K.; Tishelman, C.; Ghosh, S. Is Progress Being Made on Canada’s Palliative Care Framework and Action Plan? A Survey of Stakeholder Perspectives. BMC Palliat. Care 2022, 21, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Barry, M.J.; Edgman-Levitan, S. Shared Decision Making—Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 780–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. NHS. 75 England. Shared Decision-Making. Available online: https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/shared-decision-making/ (accessed on 11 January 2023).
  29. Coronado-Vázquez, V.; Canet-Fajas, C.; Delgado-Marroquín, M.T.; Magallón-Botaya, R.; Romero-Martín, M.; Gómez-Salgado, J. Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Patients in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020, 99, e21389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shay, L.A.; Lafata, J.E. Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes. Med. Decis. Mak. 2015, 35, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zolnierek, K.B.; Dimatteo, M.R. Physician Communication and Patient Adherence to Treatment: A Meta-analysis. Med. Care 2009, 47, 826–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Van Weert, J.C.; van Munster, B.C.; Sanders, R.; Spijker, R.; Hooft, L.; Jansen, J. Decision Aids to Help Older People Make Health Decisions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2016, 16, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Schoenfeld, E.M.; Mader, S.; Houghton, C.; Wenger, R.; Probst, M.A.; Schoenfeld, D.A.; Lindenauer, P.K.; Mazor, K.M. The Effect of Shared Decisionmaking on Patients’ Likelihood of Filing a Complaint or Lawsuit: A Simulation Study. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2019, 74, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Matsuda, S.; Kikuchi, M. Families in Japan and Asia: Current Situation and Change Based on Social Surveys. Jpn. J. Fam. Sociol. 2018, 30, 107–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Yang, Y.; Qu, T.; Yang, J.; Ma, B.; Leng, A. Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sandman, L.; Munthe, C. Shared Decision Making, Paternalism and Patient Choice. Health Care Anal. 2010, 18, 60–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kirkpatrick, J.; Kirkpatrick, W. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation; ATD Press: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Moreau, K.A. Has the New Kirkpatrick Generation Built a Better Hammer for Our Evaluation Toolbox? Med. Teach. 2017, 39, 999–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Asada, Y. Evaluation of Simulation-Based Education with Technology Enhanced Learning. J. Jpn. Soc. Clin. Anesth. 2018, 38, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Provvidenza, C.; Townley, A.; Wincentak, J.; Peacocke, S.; Kingsnorth, S. Building Knowledge Translation Competency in a Community-Based Hospital: A Practice-Informed Curriculum for Healthcare Providers, Researchers, and Leadership. Implement. Sci. 2020, 15, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Goto, Y.; Miura, H.; Son, D.; Arai, H.; Kriston, L.; Scholl, I.; Härter, M.; Sato, K.; Kusaba, T. Psychometric Evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Its Association with Decision Conflict and Patient Factors in Japanese Primary Care. JMA 2020, 3, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goto, Y.; Miura, H.; Son, D.; Scholl, I.; Kriston, L.; Härter, M.; Sato, K.; Kusaba, T.; Arai, H. Association Between Physicians’ and Patients’ Perspectives of Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Settings in Japan: The Impact of Environmental Factors. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Goto, Y.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Onishi, J.; Arai, H.; Härter, M.; Scholl, I.; Kriston, L.; Miura, H. Adapting the Patient and Physician Versions of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for Other Healthcare Providers in Japan. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2021, 21, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kriston, L.; Scholl, I.; Hölzel, L.; Simon, D.; Loh, A.; Härter, M. The 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and Psychometric Properties in a Primary Care Sample. Patient Educ. Couns. 2010, 80, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scholl, I.; Kriston, L.; Dirmaier, J.; Buchholz, A.; Härter, M. Development and Psychometric Properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire—Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ. Couns. 2012, 88, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chia, N.H.; Cheung, V.K.; Lam, M.L.; Cheung, I.W.; Wong, T.K.; So, S.S.; So, E.H.; Ng, G.W. Harnessing Power of Simulation Training Effectiveness with Kirkpatrick Model in Emergency Surgical Airway Procedures. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Canfield, J.; Truong, V.; Bereznicka, A.; Bridden, C.; Liebschutz, J.; Alford, D.P.; Saitz, R.; Samet, J.H.; Walley, A.Y.; Lunze, K. Evaluation of a Student Clinical Research Education Program in Addiction Medicine. Ann. Med. 2023, 55, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Herrmann, L.E.; Jones, Y.O.; Kinnear, B.; Rule, A.; Piper, L.; Shah, S.S.; Klein, M. Development and Evaluation of a Pediatric Hospital Medicine Board Review Course. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Momennasab, M.; Mohammadi, F.; DehghanRad, F.; Jaberi, A. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Training Programme for Nurses Regarding Augmentative and Alternative Communication with Intubated Patients Using Kirkpatrick’s Model: A Pilot Study. Nurs. Open 2022, 10, 2895–2903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Schott, C.K.; Devore, J.A.; Kelly, M.Y.; Mayr, F.B. Asynchronous Training for Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral IV Placement Among Critical Care Nurses. J. Vasc. Access 2022, 11297298221129675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Rouleau, G.; Gagnon, M.P.; Côté, J.; Payne-Gagnon, J.; Hudson, E.; Dubois, C.A.; Bouix-Picasso, J. Effects of E-learning in a Continuing Education Context on Nursing Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Studies Reviews. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e15118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Anzai, H.; Medicine, P.-C. American Way Toward “Comprehensive Medicine”. Compr. Med. 2017, 16, 22–32. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mapes, M.V.; DePergola, P.A.; McGee, W.T. Patient-Centered Care and Autonomy: Shared Decision-Making in Practice and a Suggestion for Practical Application in the Critically Ill. J. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 35, 1352–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Haes, H. Dilemmas in Patient Centeredness and Shared Decision Making: A Case for Vulnerability. Patient Educ. Couns. 2006, 62, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Martina, D.; Lin, C.P.; Kristanti, M.S.; Bramer, W.M.; Mori, M.; Korfage, I.J.; van der Heide, A.; van der Rijt, C.C.D.; Rietjens, J.A.C. Advance Care Planning in Asia: A Systematic Narrative Review of Healthcare Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Experience. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2021, 22, 349.e1–349.e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cabinet Office Japan. Annual Report on the Ageing Society [Summary] FY2021. Chart, P4, 1–1–1. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/english/annualreport/2021/pdf/2021.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  57. The Japan Geriatrics Society Subcommittee on End-of-Life Issues; Kuzuya, M.; Aita, K.; Katayama, Y.; Katsuya, T.; Nishikawa, M.; Hirahara, S.; Miura, H.; Rakugi, H.; Akishita, M. The Japan Geriatrics Society “Recommendations for the Promotion of Advance Care Planning”. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2020, 20, 1024–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Okada, K.; Tsuchiya, K.; Sakai, K.; Kuragano, T.; Uchida, A.; Tsuruya, K.; Tomo, T.; Hamada, C.; Fukagawa, M.; Kawaguchi, Y.; et al. Shared decision making for the initiation and continuation of dialysis: A proposal from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. Ren. Replace. Ther. 2021, 7, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Okada, H.; Morita, T.; Kiuchi, T.; Okuhara, T.; Kizawa, Y. Health Care Providers’ Knowledge, Confidence, Difficulties, and Practices After Completing a Communication Skills Training Program for Advance Care Planning Discussion in Japan. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021, 10, 7225–7235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Miura, H.; Kizawa, Y.; Bito, S.; Onozawa, S.; Shimizu, T.; Higuchi, N.; Takanashi, S.; Kubokawa, N.; Nishikawa, M.; Harada, A.; et al. Benefits of the Japanese Version of the Advance Care Planning Facilitators Education Program. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Pun, J.K.H.; Chan, E.A.; Wang, S.; Slade, D. Health Professional-Patient Communication Practices in East Asia: An Integrative Review of an Emerging Field of Research and Practice in Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Mainland China. Patient Educ. Couns. 2018, 101, 1193–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Miyashita, J.; Shimizu, S.; Shiraishi, R.; Mori, M.; Okawa, K.; Aita, K.; Mitsuoka, S.; Nishikawa, M.; Kizawa, Y.; Morita, T.; et al. Culturally Adapted Consensus Definition and Action Guideline: Japan’s Advance Care Planning. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2022, 64, 602–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2021 White Paper on Information and Communications, Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 4 “Issues that Surfaced in the Use of Digital Technology During the COVID-19 Crisis”. pp. 208–215. Available online: https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/ja/r03/pdf/n2400000.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2023).
  64. Bandoh, H.; Yamashita, M.; Kaminishi, H.; Sakata, N. The Current Status and Issues of Online Education at Dokkyo Medical University. IPSJ Tech. Rep. 2020, 156, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tanaka, K. Practice and Running Issues of Online Classes in University. Annu. Bull. Teach.-Train. Course Doshisha Univ. 2021, 10, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. A Survey Report on Medical Care at the End of Life. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/list/dl/saisyuiryo_a_h29.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2023).
Healthcare 11 01356 g001 550
Figure 1. Relationship between the patient, provider, and third-party roles in role-playing at O1.
Figure 1. Relationship between the patient, provider, and third-party roles in role-playing at O1.
Healthcare 11 01356 g001
Healthcare 11 01356 g002 550
Figure 2. Relationship between the patient, provider, and third-party roles in role-playing at O3.
Figure 2. Relationship between the patient, provider, and third-party roles in role-playing at O3.
Healthcare 11 01356 g002
Healthcare 11 01356 g003 550
Figure 3. Impact of this training program on the participants’ continued learning needs.
Figure 3. Impact of this training program on the participants’ continued learning needs.
Healthcare 11 01356 g003
Table
Table 1. Online educational programs and data collection points.
Table 1. Online educational programs and data collection points.
CourseTraining Day (Total Learning Time)OutlineCollected DataObservation Number
E-learningFrom 1 month before until the first workshop
(~4–7 h)
  • Acquisition of basic knowledge related to SDM and ACP
First online workshop
  • Acquisition of applied knowledge related to SDM and ACP
  • SDM communication skills training (role-play)
This role-play was a simulation
  • Number of prelearning completion certificates submitted
  • Results of the questionnaires administered after the workshop
  • Data of the SDM measurements
O1
First practice and report-making session at homeArbitrary
  • Practice in participants’ workplace
Second online workshop1 month after the first workshop
(3.5 h)
  • Acquisition of applied knowledge related to interprofessional SDM and goals-of-care discussion
  • Team building session for ACP via discussion between professionals (group discussion)
  • Results of questionnaires after the workshop
  • Date of the group’s SDM measurements
O2
Second report-making session at homeArbitrary
  • Practice at the participants’ workplace
Third online workshop3 months after the second workshop
(4 h)
  • Feedback of own practice
  • SDM communication skills training (role-play)
This role-play was a simulation.
  • Making and announcing activity plans (small group discussion)
  • Number of practice reports submitted
  • Results of the questionnaires administered after the workshop
  • Data of the SDM measurements
O3
ACP, advance care planning; SDM, shared decision making.
Table
Table 2. Professions of the participants at O1 (n = 153).
Table 2. Professions of the participants at O1 (n = 153).
ProfessionNumberPercentage (%)
Nurse7549
Physician2416
Medical social worker1610
Care manager117
Therapist96
Counselor64
Others128
Total153100
Table
Table 3. Clinical experience years of the participants at O1 (n = 153).
Table 3. Clinical experience years of the participants at O1 (n = 153).
Clinical Experience Years as a ProfessionalNumberPercentage (%)
<5 years2013
5–9 years2215
10–14 years1711
15–19 years3120
20–24 years3120
≥25 years3221
Total153100
Table
Table 4. The degree of satisfaction perceived by the participants after O1 (n = 153).
Table 4. The degree of satisfaction perceived by the participants after O1 (n = 153).
Degree of SatisfactionNumberPercentage (%)
Not satisfied at all00
Not satisfied00
Somewhat not satisfied43
Somewhat satisfied2918
Satisfied8355
Very satisfied3623
No answer11
Total153100
Table
Table 5. Training difficulty perceived by the participants after O1 (n = 153).
Table 5. Training difficulty perceived by the participants after O1 (n = 153).
Training DifficultyNumberPercentage (%)
Very difficult1510
Difficult3523
Somewhat difficult6743
Somewhat easy2819
Easy53
Very easy32
Total153100
Table
Table 6. Support from the O1 participants’ workplace in practicing ACP (n = 153).
Table 6. Support from the O1 participants’ workplace in practicing ACP (n = 153).
Support from the Participants’ Workplace in Practicing ACPNumberPercentage (%)
Not supported at all43
Not supported106
Somewhat not supported96
Somewhat supported4731
Supported5435
Fully supported2818
N/A11
Total153100
Table
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of nine SDM measurement items after O1 and O3.
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of nine SDM measurement items after O1 and O3.
MedianMeanSDMinimumMaximum
The first workshop (O1)SDM18.897.892.424011
n = 154SDM26.677.332.666011
SDM36.677.232.635011
SDM46.675.742.949011
SDM56.677.272.414211
SDM68.897.752.877011
SDM76.675.792.658011
SDM86.677.532.595011
SDM98.897.912.342011
Third Workshop (O3)SDM18.898.32.188011
n = 146SDM28.898.12.226211
SDM38.897.932.516011
SDM46.675.922.703011
SDM58.897.792.493011
SDM68.898.572.392011
SDM76.675.982.719011
SDM88.898.082.569011
SDM98.898.452.401011
Table
Table 8. Results of Wilcoxon rank-sum test on differences between O1 and O3.
Table 8. Results of Wilcoxon rank-sum test on differences between O1 and O3.
SDM1SDM2SDM3SDM4SDM5SDM6SDM7SDM8SDM9
Wilcoxon W22,271.521,320.521,44722,84121,86521,413.522,84221,62321,610
Z−1.259−2.565−2.38−0.461−1.816−2.437−0.462−2.154−2.194
p0.2080.01 *0.017 *0.6450.0690.015 *0.6440.031 *0.028 *
* p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Goto, Y.; Miura, H. Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1356. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091356

AMA Style

Goto Y, Miura H. Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study. Healthcare. 2023; 11(9):1356. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091356

Chicago/Turabian Style

Goto, Yuko, and Hisayuki Miura. 2023. "Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study" Healthcare 11, no. 9: 1356. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091356

APA Style

Goto, Y., & Miura, H. (2023). Evaluation of an Advanced Care Planning Training Program Incorporating Online Skills in Shared Decision Making: A Preintervention and Postintervention Comparative Study. Healthcare, 11(9), 1356. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11091356

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop