Abstract
The integration of shared decision-making (SDM) into undergraduate oncology education represents a critical evolution in medical pedagogy, reflecting the growing complexity and patient-centric focus of contemporary healthcare. This paper introduces a comprehensive pedagogical framework designed to embed SDM within the undergraduate medical curriculum, particularly in oncology, where the multiplicity of treatment options and their profound impact on patient life underscore the necessity of this approach. Grounded in a systematic literature review and aligned with established educational theories, this framework proposes twelve strategic approaches to cultivate future physicians proficient in both clinical acumen and patient-collaborative decision-making. The framework emphasizes real-world clinical experience, role-playing, case studies, and decision aids to deepen students’ understanding of SDM. It advocates for the development of communication skills, ethical deliberation, and cultural competence, recognizing the multifaceted nature of patient care. The inclusion of patient narratives and evidence-based decision-making further enriches the curriculum, offering a holistic view of patient care. Additionally, the integration of digital tools within the SDM process acknowledges the evolving technological landscape in healthcare. The paper also addresses challenges in implementing this framework, such as curricular constraints and the need for educator training. It underscores the importance of continual evaluation and adaptation of these strategies to the dynamic field of medical education and practice. Overall, this comprehensive approach aims not only to enhance the quality of oncological care but also to prepare medical students for the complexities of modern medicine, where patient involvement in decision-making is both a necessity and an expectation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has undergone a significant evolution, mirroring the shifts in the broader healthcare landscape. Historically, medical decision-making was predominantly clinician-driven, with limited patient involvement. This paradigm shifted notably over the past few decades, as patient autonomy and individual rights gained prominence. The ethos of SDM emerged from this transition, advocating for a more egalitarian approach to healthcare, where patient preferences and values are integrated into the decision-making process [1].
In oncology, this shift is particularly salient. The field has witnessed an exponential growth in therapeutic options, ranging from targeted therapies to immunotherapies, each accompanied by its own risk–benefit profile. This burgeoning complexity makes SDM not only desirable but also essential. SDM in oncology respects the patient’s right to be an active participant in their care, acknowledging the profound personal impact of oncological decisions [2, 3].
Despite the acknowledged importance of SDM, there remains a significant gap in its integration into medical education, particularly at the undergraduate level [4]. Traditional medical curricula often remain focused on the biomedical model, with less emphasis on the skills necessary for effective SDM, such as communication, ethical deliberation, and appreciation of patient values. This educational shortfall is increasingly incongruent with the demands of contemporary oncological practice, where patient involvement in decision-making is not just preferred but expected [5].
This paper, therefore, seeks to address this gap. It proposes a comprehensive pedagogical framework that aligns with the current needs of oncological care. By outlining twelve strategic approaches, it aims to embed the principles and practices of SDM into the undergraduate medical curriculum, ensuring that future physicians are not only clinically adept but also proficient in collaboratively navigating the complex decision-making landscape of modern oncology.
Methods
Systematic Literature Review
The literature review was conducted to encompass a broad spectrum of sources relevant to SDM, oncological care, and medical education. The selection criteria for literature included peer-reviewed articles published within the last 15 years, ensuring contemporary relevance. We focused on studies that discussed the implementation of SDM in clinical practice, its integration into medical curricula, and the impact of SDM on patient outcomes in oncology. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. Additionally, reference lists of pertinent articles were scrutinized to identify additional relevant literature. The inclusion criteria were stringent, favoring studies that provided empirical evidence or substantial theoretical frameworks regarding SDM in medical education and oncological practice. For a detailed exposition of the search strategy employed, including the specific adaptations made to accommodate the unique indexing and search functionalities of each database, readers are directed to Supplementary information 1.
Pedagogical Alignment
Upon identifying strategies from the literature review, the next step involved aligning these strategies with established pedagogical principles. This alignment ensured that the proposed SDM teaching methods were not only evidence-based but also educationally sound and coherent with broader educational objectives. Key pedagogical frameworks considered included experiential learning, reflective practice, adult learning theory, and competency-based education. Each identified SDM strategy was scrutinized and adapted to align with these pedagogical principles, ensuring that they could be seamlessly integrated into existing medical curricula and effectively facilitate the learning objectives of SDM.
This dual approach of rigorous literature review and pedagogical alignment culminated in the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based, and pedagogically sound framework for incorporating SDM into undergraduate medical education, particularly in the field of oncology.
Results: Identified Strategies
Strategy 1: Ground the Concept of SDM in Real-World Oncology Scenarios
To foster a profound understanding of SDM in oncology, it is vital for students to be immersed in clinical settings where SDM is actively practiced [1]. Observing patient consultations offers a practical framework for learning [6]. In these settings, students can observe firsthand how diagnoses, treatment options, and potential outcomes are communicated, aligning clinical evidence with individual patient preferences. In the realm of oncology, where decisions carry significant weight regarding patient outcomes and quality of life, such practical experiences serve to solidify the foundational principles of SDM [7]. It is through this hands-on exposure that students can critically analyze and understand the complexities and importance of integrating clinical evidence with patient values in the decision-making process [8].
Strategy 2: Facilitate Role-Playing Exercises
Role-playing remains an effective pedagogical method, especially in contexts that involve interpersonal communication and decision-making [9,10,11]. To deepen comprehension of SDM in oncology, students can engage in simulated patient-provider consultations through role-playing. By alternating roles in these simulations, students gain insights into the challenges faced by healthcare providers and patients alike. These exercises foster effective communication, especially in conveying intricate treatment options and their implications [12]. Additionally, they offer a platform for students to cultivate empathy, a critical skill for addressing sensitive discussions inherent to oncology [13, 14]. Through repeated practice in controlled settings, students can better prepare for real-world oncology consultations, ensuring a balanced integration of patient values and clinical evidence in medical decisions.
Strategy 3: Dissect Case Studies with Varied Outcomes
Case studies serve as invaluable tools in medical education, offering tangible examples that bridge theory with practice [15]. In exploring the complexities of SDM in oncology, it might be beneficial to expose students to diverse case studies, each demonstrating varied outcomes of the decision-making process. Such studies, especially those highlighting the divergence between patient values and standard medical recommendations, offer insight into the layered nature of SDM. Within oncology, where treatment choices influence both life quality and duration, an appreciation for the range of outcomes influenced by SDM becomes evident [16]. Through examination of these cases, students may gain a deeper understanding of the role of patient values and their potential interplay with clinical advice [17]. This approach aims to prompt students to consider the weight of patient values and how they interplay with clinical recommendations, preparing them for the nuanced discussions they will encounter in their professional practice.
Strategy 4: Introduce Decision Aids
In the innately complex domain of oncology, the decision-making process is often augmented by a suite of decision aids designed to facilitate understanding and discussion [18, 19]. Medical educators should introduce students to these tools, commonly found in the form of risk diagrams, outcome probability charts, and decision trees [20]. These aids aim to make abstract concepts more tangible, allowing patients to visualize potential outcomes, benefits, and risks associated with each treatment option [21]. Training sessions could be designed wherein students learn to employ these aids not merely as passive reference tools but as active instruments for dialog, ensuring that patients comprehend the vast array of information presented to them [22]. By familiarizing themselves with these decision aids, students can foster transparent and productive discussions with patients, anchoring the SDM process in both evidence-based data and individual patient perspectives.
Strategy 5: Emphasize the Ethics of SDM in Oncology
Oncological care is replete with ethical challenges that arise when aligning medical recommendations with patient preferences [23,24,25]. It is crucial for undergraduate medical students to understand these ethical dimensions to navigate potential dilemmas in SDM. As educators, it is essential to guide students in recognizing the nuances between providing hope, setting realistic expectations, and honoring patient autonomy [26]. Incorporating discussions that delve into scenarios where patient desires might diverge from standard medical guidelines can prove insightful [27, 28]. By analyzing these situations, students can explore methods to approach discrepancies between clinical evidence and patient wishes. Ethical considerations also extend to matters of informed consent, treatment discontinuation, and end-of-life choices [29]. Through structured discussions and case analyses, students can be trained to handle these situations with integrity, ensuring decisions are respectful of both medical guidelines and patient values.
Strategy 6: Teach Communication Skills Specific to Oncology
Effective communication is paramount in oncology, where conversations often involve sensitive topics like prognosis and end-of-life care [30, 31]. Medical students must be proficient in tailored verbal and non-verbal communication techniques for such scenarios [32]. Developing focused training modules can enhance skills in delivering clear information while demonstrating empathy. Students should practice conveying complex medical terminology in understandable terms, ensuring comprehensive comprehension by patients and their families. Proficiency in interpreting non-verbal cues and responding appropriately is essential. Role-play exercises can be valuable in this context, enabling students to simulate real consultations [33]. Constructive feedback mechanisms are crucial, aiding students in adapting their communication styles. This rigorous training can equip students with the capacity to establish trust, foster understanding, and collaborate effectively with patients during the SDM process.
Strategy 7: Advocate for Continual Reflection
The practice of self-reflection is paramount for medical students to critically assess their understanding and application of SDM in oncology [34]. Encouraging students to introspect regularly allows them to identify biases, challenge pre-existing notions, and refine their approach to SDM [35, 36]. Incorporate structured reflective exercises into the curriculum, such as journaling assignments. These should prompt students to reflect upon their experiences in real-world clinical settings, the challenges they faced, and the decision-making processes they observed or participated in [37]. Through this, they can consolidate their learning experiences and analyze them in the context of theoretical SDM principles [38]. Furthermore, fostering reflective group discussions can be beneficial [39, 40]. Such sessions provide a platform for students to share experiences, gain insights from peers, and collectively evolve their perspectives on SDM. This collaborative form of reflection can aid in highlighting the multifaceted nature of oncological care and emphasize the importance of continual learning in the ever-evolving field of oncology.
Strategy 8: Organize Interdisciplinary Collaborations
Oncology, by its nature, demands a multifaceted approach to care. Interdisciplinary collaborations are critical for providing comprehensive patient care, and they play a pivotal role in SDM [41]. For medical students, understanding the roles and perspectives of various healthcare professionals is crucial for effective SDM [42, 43]. Incorporating structured interdisciplinary sessions into the curriculum where students can interact with professionals such as nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and others involved in oncological can offer students a broader understanding of the SDM process from varied professional standpoints [44]. It allows them to appreciate the contributions of each discipline and how they interplay in the decision-making process [45, 46]. Such interdisciplinary engagements not only provide diverse perspectives but also emphasize the team-based nature of oncological care [47]. By understanding the different facets of a patient’s care team, students are better prepared to engage in collaborative SDM, ensuring that decisions are well-rounded, considerate of various expert opinions, and are in the best interest of the patient.
Strategy 9: Highlight Cultural and Social Sensitivities
SDM in oncology is not conducted in a cultural vacuum. Cultural, social, and individual backgrounds play a critical role in shaping patients’ preferences, values, and decisions about their care [48, 49]. To enhance the depth of understanding for medical students, it is essential to expose them to diverse patient populations [50, 51]. By interacting with patients from various backgrounds, students gain insights into how sociocultural factors influence treatment choices [52, 53]. This exposure can be facilitated through case studies, clinical rotations in diverse settings, or structured interactions with patients of varied backgrounds [54,55,56]. Furthermore, sessions on cultural competence may be integrated into the curriculum. These sessions should provide students with knowledge and tools to recognize and respect cultural variations in health beliefs, values, and practices [56, 57]. Emphasizing the importance of cultural competence ensures that students recognize the inherent biases that may arise in clinical interactions, thereby striving for more equitable care. By focusing on the cultural and social sensitivities that impact SDM in oncology, students are better equipped to make decisions that are both medically sound and culturally sensitive, ensuring a more holistic approach to patient care.
Strategy 10: Integrate Patient Narratives
In oncology, where decisions can have profound implications, understanding the patient’s perspective is paramount [58]. One of the most effective ways to convey this perspective to medical students is through direct narratives from patients or their family members. Inviting patients to share their experiences with diagnosis, treatment, and decision-making offers an invaluable perspective [59]. These personal accounts can illuminate the real-world implications of SDM, highlighting both the challenges faced and the benefits realized when patients are active participants in their care decisions [2, 60]. Furthermore, patient narratives can underscore the emotional dimensions of oncological care, which are often not fully captured in clinical case studies or textbooks [61]. They provide students with a firsthand look at the fears, hopes, and uncertainties that patients grapple with, emphasizing the human aspect of medical practice [62]. To optimize the learning from these sessions, it is advisable to follow up with debriefing sessions [63]. Here, students can discuss their takeaways, clarify doubts, and reflect on how these narratives can influence their future practice. By integrating patient narratives into the curriculum, medical students may gain a deeper appreciation for the central role of the patient in SDM, reinforcing the importance of empathy and active listening in clinical practice [64].
Strategy 11: Encourage Evidence-Based Decision-Making
Incorporating evidence-based medicine (EBM) into the SDM process is paramount in oncology [65]. While SDM emphasizes patient values and preferences, it is equally crucial for decisions to be grounded in the most recent and relevant evidence. Medical students should be trained to approach clinical situations with a dual lens: one that views the patient’s individual needs and values, and another that scans the existing scientific literature for applicable data [66]. An emphasis should be placed on teaching students the skills to critically evaluate medical research, discerning the quality and relevance of studies [67]. Practical exercises could involve presenting students with a clinical scenario, alongside several research studies, and tasking them with incorporating this evidence into a mock patient consultation. By doing so, they practice weaving together patient values with scientific findings. Moreover, it is important for students to understand that evidence-based recommendations can change over time as new research emerges. Educators should underscore the need for ongoing learning and adaptation in practice, instilling in students a respect for the dynamic nature of medical evidence. This approach not only bolsters the quality of care but also aligns medical interventions closely with patient preferences [68].
Strategy 12: Embrace Digital Tools for SDM
The digital landscape offers a promising avenue to enhance SDM in oncology [69,70,71]. Medical students, as digital natives, stand at the precipice of integrating technology seamlessly into clinical practice, and educators should foster this [72, 73]. Students should be introduced to the concept that various digital tools can assist in the SDM process. For instance, there are platforms designed to visually represent medical data, making it more digestible for patients [74,75,76]. These visualization tools can help bridge the comprehension gap, turning abstract data into meaningful insights, allowing for more informed decisions. Another promising avenue is symptom-tracking applications [77, 78]. While students do not need to be versed in specific apps, they should be aware of the potential such tools offer. Regular digital updates on a patient’s well-being can guide discussions and assist in tailoring personalized treatment plans [79]. It is also paramount for students to understand the ethical considerations surrounding digital tools, especially regarding data security and patient privacy [80]. As they progress in their careers, this foundation will enable them to evaluate and incorporate emerging technologies judiciously into their practice, always keeping the patient’s best interests at the forefront [81].
Discussion
The strategies presented in this manuscript offer a comprehensive approach to integrating SDM practices into undergraduate medical education, specifically within the context of oncology. While these strategies provide a robust framework, there are certain challenges and considerations that merit discussion to ensure the successful implementation and enhancement of SDM education.
Challenges and Limitations
The incorporation of SDM into medical education faces several challenges, including constraints on curricular time, competing educational priorities, and potential resistance stemming from entrenched traditional teaching methodologies. These hurdles necessitate a proactive and strategic approach to ensure successful integration. Key to overcoming these obstacles is the development of workshops and training sessions specifically designed for educators. These sessions should aim to not only acquaint educators with the SDM strategies but also to highlight their significance and positive impact on patient care. Furthermore, tailoring these strategies to suit the specific resources and time limitations of each educational institution is critical for enhancing the practicality and effectiveness of their implementation. Recognizing and actively addressing these challenges with pragmatic solutions is essential to create a conducive environment for the seamless integration of SDM into the medical curriculum.
Cultural and Social Sensitivities
SDM in medical practice is not solely based on medical evidence and individual patient preferences; it also necessitates a keen awareness of cultural and social nuances. The influence of a patient’s cultural background, beliefs, and social milieu significantly shapes medical decision-making [82]. Educational exposure to a diverse array of patient populations through case studies and clinical interactions is vital for medical students to comprehend the impact of these sociocultural factors on treatment decisions. Training in cultural competence is imperative to provide students with the necessary skills to adeptly navigate these multifaceted aspects, thereby promoting respectful and equitable patient-centered care [83]. By integrating cultural and social considerations into the SDM process, medical students are better equipped to participate in meaningful decision-making discussions, effectively acknowledging and respecting individual patient values within the rich tapestry of cultural diversity [43, 84].
Assessment and Evaluation
The effectiveness of the implemented SDM strategies within the educational framework can be appraised through a variety of evaluative measures. Objective assessment instruments, such as standardized patient encounters, are pivotal for gauging students’ proficiency in applying SDM principles in practical clinical contexts [85]. Additionally, self-assessment methodologies offer students the opportunity for introspection, enabling them to critically assess their progression in comprehending and implementing SDM concepts throughout their educational journey [86]. Furthermore, soliciting feedback from both students and educators regarding the perceived efficacy of these strategies is crucial for the iterative refinement of the educational approach. Continuous evaluation is essential to ensure that the learning objectives are met and that the strategies adaptively align with the dynamic requirements of medical education and evolving patient care paradigms.
Holistic Approach to Decision-Making
SDM extends beyond basic communication skills, necessitating a comprehensive and integrative approach to medical decision-making. The strategies proposed in this paper advocate for an educational model that transcends traditional clinical evidence and patient preferences, incorporating ethical considerations, interdisciplinary collaboration, patient narratives, and the pragmatic use of digital tools. This amalgamation aims to equip medical students with the capability to proficiently address the diverse and complex aspects of oncological care, including its emotional, ethical, and technological dimensions. By adopting this multifaceted approach, the framework aspires to enhance the overall quality of patient care and to prepare future medical practitioners for the intricate and evolving landscape of contemporary medicine, albeit with an understanding of the inherent challenges and limitations of such an integrative approach.
Conclusion
In synthesizing the necessity for embedding SDM within undergraduate oncology education, this paper presents a framework that aligns with the evolving dynamics of medical practice, particularly in the realm of oncology. The strategies outlined herein propose a methodological shift in medical education, moving toward a model that balances clinical expertise with patient-centered decision-making.
This framework, derived from a systematic literature review and attuned to established pedagogical theories, recognizes the intricacies of oncological care and the heterogeneity of patient encounters. Strategies such as the incorporation of real-world clinical experiences, simulated patient interactions, analytical case studies, and the use of decision aids are posited as essential components in cultivating a deeper understanding of SDM. Furthermore, the emphasis on communication skills, reflective practice, interdisciplinary collaboration, cultural competence, and digital literacy aims to equip students with a diverse skill set necessary for contemporary oncological practice.
The transition toward a curriculum that emphasizes patient autonomy and collaborative decision-making mirrors the broader shift in healthcare toward more patient-inclusive models. This is particularly relevant in oncology, where treatment options and patient preferences are notably complex. However, the implementation of these strategies requires careful consideration and adaptation to the specific contexts of educational institutions. The proposed framework, while comprehensive, is not without its limitations and should be viewed as a starting point for further development and customization.
Educators and practitioners in the field of medicine carry the responsibility of shaping future medical practice. This framework represents a considered approach to this responsibility, acknowledging the evolving nature of medical science and the importance of patient-physician relationships. However, it must be noted that the integration of these strategies into medical curricula requires ongoing evaluation and adaptation to ensure their effectiveness and relevance.
In summary, the integration of SDM into the undergraduate oncology curriculum is a critical step toward enhancing patient-centered care in medical practice. This manuscript offers a foundational framework for this integration, providing a structured yet adaptable approach. It is imperative that medical educators and institutions approach the adoption of these strategies with a discerning perspective, ensuring that they are effectively integrated into the fabric of medical education and practice.
Data Availability
All data pertinent to this study are encompassed within the article. No supplementary data were generated or analyzed during the creation of this manuscript.
References
Moleman M, Regeer BJ, Schuitmaker-Warnaar TJ (2020) Shared decision-making and the nuances of clinical work: concepts, barriers and opportunities for a dynamic model. J Eval Clin Pract 27(4):926–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13507
Bomhof-Roordink H, Fischer MJ, van Duijn-Bakker N, Baas-Thijssen MC, van der Weijden T, Stiggelbout AM et al (2019) Shared decision making in oncology: a model based on patients’, health care professionals’, and researchers’ views. Psychooncology 28(1):139–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4923
Frerichs W, Hahlweg P, Müller E, Adis C, Scholl I (2016) Shared decision-making in oncology – a qualitative analysis of healthcare providers’ views on current practice. Plos One. 11(3):e0149789. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149789
Geiger F, Hacke C, Potthoff J, Scheibler F, Rueffer JU, Kuch C et al (2021) The effect of a scalable online training module for shared decision making based on flawed video examples – a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 104(7):1568–1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.11.033
Faivre JC, Bibault JE, Bellesoeur A, Salleron J, Wack M, Biau J et al (2018) Choosing a career in oncology: results of a nationwide cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 18(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1117-2
Towle A, Godolphin W (1999) Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ 319(7212):766–771. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766
Kane HL, Halpern MT, Squiers LB, Treiman KA, McCormack LA. (2014) Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA Cancer J Clin 64(6):377–88. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21245.
Lehane E, Leahy-Warren P, O’Riordan C, Savage E, Drennan J, O’Tuathaigh C et al (2019) Evidence-based practice education for healthcare professions: an expert view. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 24(3):103–108. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111019
Dewi SP, Wilson A, Duvivier R, Kelly B, Gilligan C. (2023) Perceptions of medical students and their facilitators on clinical communication skills teaching, learning, and assessment. Front Public Health 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1168332.
Nestel D, Tierney T (2007) Role-play for medical students learning about communication: guidelines for maximising benefits. BMC Med Educ 7:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-3
Rutkowska A (2018) Perception of teaching and learning using medical simulation methods related to primary psychological counseling and prevention—a multicultural focus group study. Med Sci Educ 28(1):133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0521-2
Reith-Hall E, Montgomery P (2023) Communication skills training for improving the communicative abilities of student social workers. Campbell Syst Rev 19(1):e1309. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1309
Batt-Rawden SA, Chisolm MS, Anton B, Flickinger TE (2013) Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review. Acad Med 88(8):1171–1177. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299f3e3
Isaksson J, Krabbe J, Ramklint M (2022) Medical students’ experiences of working with simulated patients in challenging communication training. Adv Simul (Lond) 7(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00230-3
McLean SF (2016) Case-based learning and its application in medical and health-care fields: a review of worldwide literature. J Med Educ Curric Dev 3:JMECD.S20377. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S20377
Noordman J, Oosterveld-Vlug M, Rademakers J (2022) Shared decision making in clinical practice. Eur J Health Comm 3(1):31-52
Singh S, Butow P, Charles M, Tattersall MH (2010) Shared decision making in oncology: assessing oncologist behaviour in consultations in which adjuvant therapy is considered after primary surgical treatment. Health Expect 13(3):244–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00587.x
Stacey D, Samant R, Bennett C (2008) Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. CA Cancer J Clin 58(5):293–304. https://doi.org/10.3322/CA.2008.0006
Normahani P, Sounderajah V, Harrop-Griffiths W, Chukwuemeka A, Peters NS, Standfield NJ et al (2020) Achieving good-quality consent: review of literature, case law and guidance. BJS Open 4(5):757–763. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50306
Woodhouse KD, Tremont K, Vachani A, Schapira MM, Vapiwala N, Simone CB 2nd et al (2017) A review of shared decision-making and patient decision aids in radiation oncology. J Cancer Educ 32(2):238–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1169-8
Adunlin G, Diaby V, Montero AJ, Xiao H (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect 18(6):1812–1826. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12178
Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4(4):CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
Benedetti DJ, Golshan M, Kesselheim JC (2018) Going the distance: ethical issues arising when patients seek cancer care from international settings. J Glob Oncol 4:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.17.00001
Griffiths AW, Ashley L, Kelley R, Cowdell F, Collinson M, Mason E et al (2020) Decision-making in cancer care for people living with dementia. Psychooncology 29(8):1347–1354. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5448
Peppercorn J (2012) Ethics of ongoing cancer care for patients making risky decisions. J Oncol Pract 8(5):e111–e113. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2012.000622
Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K (2010) Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med 25(7):741–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2
Jacobsen J, Blinderman C, Alexander Cole C, Jackson V (2018) “I’d recommend …” how to incorporate your recommendation into shared decision making for patients with serious illness. J Pain Symptom Manag 55(4):1224–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.12.488
Say RE, Thomson R (2003) The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions–challenges for doctors. BMJ 327(7414):542–545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542
Akdeniz M, Yardimci B, Kavukcu E (2021) Ethical considerations at the end-of-life care. SAGE Open Med 9:20503121211000920. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121211000918
Fallowfield L, Jenkins V (1999) Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care. Eur J Cancer 35(11):1592–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00212-9
Krieger T, Salm S, Dresen A, Cecon N (2022) Cancer patients’ experiences and preferences when receiving bad news: a qualitative study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149(7):3859–3870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-022-04311-8
Gilligan C, Powell M, Lynagh MC, Ward BM, Lonsdale C, Harvey P, et al. (2021) Interventions for improving medical students’ interpersonal communication in medical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012418.pub2
Kleinsmith A, Rivera-Gutierrez D, Finney G, Cendan J, Lok B (2015) Understanding empathy training with virtual patients. Comput Hum Behav 52:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.033
Roodbeen RTJ, Noordman J, Boland G, van Dulmen S. (2021) Shared decision making in practice and the perspectives of health care professionals on video-recorded consultations with patients with low health literacy in the palliative phase of their disease. MDM Policy Pract 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211023472
Baghus A, Giroldi E, Timmerman A, Schmitz E, Erkan F, Röhlinger D et al (2022) Identifying residents’ educational needs to optimising postgraduate medical education about shared decision-making. Patient Educ Couns 105(10):3086–3095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.06.016
Tiuraniemi J, Läärä R, Kyrö T, Lindeman S (2011) Medical and psychology students’ self-assessed communication skills: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 83(2):152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.05.013
Hashemi Z, Mirzaei T (2015) Conversations of the mind: the impact of journal writing on enhancing EFL medical students’ reflections, attitudes, and sense of self. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 199:103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.493
Angkurawaranon C, Ankolekar A, Dahl Steffensen K, Olling K, Dekker A, Wee L et al (2021) Practitioners’ views on shared decision-making implementation: a qualitative study. Plos One 16(11):e0259844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259844
Diouf NT, Musabyimana A, Blanchette V, Lépine J, Guay-Bélanger S, Tremblay M-C et al (2022) Effectiveness of shared decision-making training programs for health care professionals using reflexivity strategies: secondary analysis of a systematic review. JMIR Med Educ 8(4):e42033. https://doi.org/10.2196/42033
McCabe R, John P, Dooley J, Healey P, Cushing A, Kingdon D et al (2018) Training to enhance psychiatrist communication with patients with psychosis (TEMPO): cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 209(6):517–524. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179499
Shickh S, Leventakos K, Lewis MA, Bombard Y, Montori VM (2023) Shared decision making in the care of patients with cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 43:e389516. https://doi.org/10.1200/edbk_389516
Xu RH, Zhou L, Wong EL-Y, Wang D, Xiang GC, Xu C (2020) A best-worst scaling survey of medical students’ perspective on implementing shared decision-making in China. BMC Med Educ 20(1):486. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02406-9
Yen RW, Barr PJ, Cochran N, Aarts JW, Légaré F, Reed M et al (2019) Medical students’ knowledge and attitudes toward shared decision making: results from a multinational, cross-sectional survey. MDM Policy Pract 4(2):2381468319885871. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468319885871
Sultan L, Alsaywid B, De Jong N, De Nooijer J (2022) Current trends in interprofessional shared decision-making programmes in health professions education: a scoping review. Sustainability 14(20):13157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013157
Mattes MD, Gerbo R, Dattola RM (2017) Tumor board shadowing for medical students as a means of early exposure to multidisciplinary oncology education. J Am Coll Radiol 14(2):253–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.07.009
Tsui JMG, Grewal NKS, Sivapragasam M, Flanagan M, Golden DW, Alfieri J et al (2019) Tumor board shadowing: a unique approach for integrating radiation oncologists into general medical student education. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 104(4):773–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.03.042
Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. (2017) Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018(8). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3
Katz SJ, Belkora J, Elwyn G (2014) Shared decision making for treatment of cancer: challenges and opportunities. J Oncol Pract 10(3):206–208. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2014.001434
Haltaufderheide J, Wäscher S, Bertlich B, Vollmann J, Reinacher-Schick A, Schildmann J (2019) “I need to know what makes somebody tick …”: challenges and strategies of implementing shared decision-making in individualized oncology. Oncologist 24(4):555–562. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0615
Dogra N, Bhatti F, Ertubey C, Kelly M, Rowlands A, Singh D, et al. (2015) Teaching diversity to medical undergraduates: curriculum development, delivery and assessment. AMEE GUIDE No. 103. Med Teacher 38(4):323–37. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1105944
Liu J, Miles K, Li S (2022) Cultural competence education for undergraduate medical students: an ethnographic study. Front Educ 7:980633. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.980633
Luo T, Spolverato G, Johnston F, Haider AH, Pawlik TM (2015) Factors that determine cancer treatment choice among minority groups. J Oncol Pract 11(3):259–261. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2015.003640
Salek M, Silverstein A, Tilly A, Gassant PY, Gunasekera S, Hordofa DF et al (2023) Factors influencing treatment decision-making for cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Cancer Med. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6375
Moreo K, Sullivan S, Carter J, Heggen C (2023) Generating team-based strategies to reduce health inequity in cancer care. Prof Case Manag 28(5):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0000000000000657
Alizadeh S, Chavan M (2016) Cultural competence dimensions and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Health Soc Care Community 24(6):e117–e130. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12293
Liu J, Li S (2022) An ethnographic investigation of medical students’ cultural competence development in clinical placements. Adv Health Sci Educ 28(3):705–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10179-7
Gradellini C, Gómez-Cantarino S, Dominguez-Isabel P, Molina-Gallego B, Mecugni D, Ugarte-Gurrutxaga MI (2021) Cultural competence and cultural sensitivity education in university nursing courses. A scoping review. Front Psychol 12:682920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682920
Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Pignone MP (2015) Decision making and cancer. Am Psychol 70(2):105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036834
Josfeld L, Keinki C, Pammer C, Zomorodbakhsch B, Hübner J (2021) Cancer patients’ perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147(6):1725–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-021-03579-6
Perrone F, Di Liello R, Gargiulo P, Arenare L, Guizzaro L, Chiodini P et al (2021) The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology. BMJ Open 11(9):e052871. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052871
Mathieson CM, Stam HJ (1995) Renegotiating identity: cancer narratives. Sociol Health Illn 17(3):283–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10933316
Butani L, Sweeney C, Plant J (2020) Effect of a patient-led educational session on pre-clerkship students’ learning of professional values and on their professional development. Med Educ Online 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1801174
Coret A, Boyd K, Hobbs K, Zazulak J, McConnell M (2017) Patient narratives as a teaching tool: a pilot study of first-year medical students and patient educators affected by intellectual/developmental disabilities. Teach Learn Med 30(3):317–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1398653
Eggeling M, Bientzle M, Korger S, Kimmerle J (2021) The impact of patient narratives on medical students’ perceptions of shared decision making: a randomized controlled trial. Med Educ Online 26(1):1886642. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1886642
Simons M, Rapport F, Zurynski Y, Stoodley M, Cullis J, Davidson AS (2022) Links between evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making in courses for doctors in training: a scoping review. BMJ Open 12(4):e057335. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057335
Braschi E, Stacey D, Légaré F, Grad R, Archibald D (2020) Evidence-based medicine, shared decision making and the hidden curriculum: a qualitative content analysis. Perspect Med Educ 9(3):173–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00578-0
Engle RL, Mohr DC, Holmes SK, Seibert MN, Afable M, Leyson J et al (2021) Evidence-based practice and patient-centered care: doing both well. Health Care Manage Rev 46(3):174–184. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000254
Lewin LO, Robert NJ, Raczek J, Carraccio C, Hicks PJ (2014) An online evidence based medicine exercise prompts reflection in third year medical students. BMC Med Educ 14:164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-164
Herrera DJ, van de Veerdonk W, Berhe NM, Talboom S, van Loo M, Alejos AR et al (2023) Mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening. Cancers 15(15):3867. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15153867
Steffensen KD, Vinter M, Crüger D, Dankl K, Coulter A, Stuart B et al (2018) Lessons in integrating shared decision-making into cancer care. J Oncol Pract 14(4):229–235. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.18.00019
Tan ASL, Mazor KM, McDonald D, Lee SJ, McNeal D, Matlock DD et al (2018) Designing shared decision-making interventions for dissemination and sustainment: can implementation science help translate shared decision making into routine practice? MDM Policy Pract 3(2):2381468318808503. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468318808503
Chouvarda I, Mountford N, Trajkovik V, Loncar-Turukalo T, Cusack T (2019) Leveraging interdisciplinary education toward securing the future of connected health research in Europe: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 21(11):e14020. https://doi.org/10.2196/14020
Pathipati AS, Azad TD, Jethwani K (2016) Telemedical education: training digital natives in telemedicine. J Med Internet Res 18(7):e193. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5534
Abudiyab NA, Alanazi AT (2022) Visualization techniques in healthcare applications: a narrative review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.31355
Bautista JR, Harrell DT, Hanson L, de Oliveira E, Abdul-Moheeth M, Meyer ET et al (2023) MediLinker: a blockchain-based decentralized health information management platform for patient-centric healthcare. Front Big Data 6:1146023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2023.1146023
Turchioe MR, Myers A, Isaac S, Baik D, Grossman LV, Ancker JS et al (2019) A systematic review of patient-facing visualizations of personal health data. Appl Clin Inform 10(04):751–770. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697592
Lu DJ, Girgis M, David JM, Chung EM, Atkins KM, Kamrava M (2021) Evaluation of mobile health applications to track patient-reported outcomes for oncology patients: a systematic review. Adv Radiat Oncol 6(1):100576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.016
Vaffis S, Whaley S, Axon DR, Hall-Lipsy E, Hincapie A, Slack M et al (2023) Features of cancer mHealth apps and evidence for patient preferences: scoping literature review. JMIR Cancer 9:e37330. https://doi.org/10.2196/37330
Vo V, Auroy L, Sarradon-Eck A (2019) Patients’ perceptions of mHealth apps: meta-ethnographic review of qualitative studies. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 7(7):e13817. https://doi.org/10.2196/13817
Filkins BL, Kim JY, Roberts B, Armstrong W, Miller MA, Hultner ML et al (2016) Privacy and security in the era of digital health: what should translational researchers know and do about it? Am J Transl Res 8(3):1560–1580
Machleid F, Kaczmarczyk R, Johann D, Balčiūnas J, Atienza-Carbonell B, von Maltzahn F et al (2020) Perceptions of digital health education among European medical students: mixed methods survey. J Med Internet Res 22(8):e19827. https://doi.org/10.2196/19827
Stalnikowicz R, Brezis M (2020) Meaningful shared decision-making: complex process demanding cognitive and emotional skills. J Eval Clin Pract 26(2):431–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13349
Stubbe DE (2020) Practicing cultural competence and cultural humility in the care of diverse patients. Focus 18(1):49–51. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20190041
Leblang C, Taylor S, Brown A, Knapp J, Jindal M (2022) A structured approach to shared decision making training and assessment of knowledge, attitudes and perception of second year medical students. Med Educ Online 27(1):2044279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2044279
Cochran N, Carey D, Blaine AI (2016) Standardized patients as educational interventions. In: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Thompson R (eds), Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice, 3rd edn (Oxford, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723448.003.0015
Kiessling C, Bauer J, Gartmeier M, Iblher P, Karsten G, Kiesewetter J et al (2016) Development and validation of a computer-based situational judgement test to assess medical students’ communication skills in the field of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 99(11):1858–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.06.006
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ALM and ACLM have contributed significantly to all aspects of the manuscript. Both authors met the criteria for authorship according to ICMJE guidelines and reviewed the final version of this article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
In alignment with relevant federal and state regulations, as well as institutional guidelines, this study did not require formal ethical approval.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lawson McLean, A., Lawson McLean, A.C. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework. J Canc Educ 39, 374–382 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02419-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02419-8