Table 3.

Summary of interventions

Author	Description of intervention and supportive material(s)	Training strategies	Conceptual basisa	Multi-faced interventionb	Trainers	Behaviour change c	Duration of trainingd	Supportive materiale	Strength of interventionf	How manipulation was measuredg	Manipulation check resulth
Chassany34	Pragmatic, interactive, centred on the patient–physician relationship and based on the specific biopsychosocial model of chronic pain; the training focused on 3 themes: the patient–physician relationship, analysis and evaluation of pain and prescribing and the negotiation of the therapeutic contract with the patient	Workshops, group discussion, reminders	1	1	Facilitators and experts	1	240	0	2	−	−
Cooper32	Physician training focused on increasing patient engagement and pre-visit patient coaching to improve patient communication with clinicians and outcomes	Physicians: feedback on simulated patient contact and workbook or CD-ROM exercise; patients: coaching and telephone	1	1	Physicians: unknown; patients: by community health workers	1	1480 +?	1	2	Videotape and PQ, PQ on patient ratings of physicians’ participatory decision-making style, PICS50	+?
Kinmonth28	Doctor training: didactic only; nurses training: didactic instruction and skills, including active listening and negotiation of behaviour change; for patients: a booklet that encouraged patients to ask questions and an optional leaflet for patients encouraging discussion of complications and concerns and a booklet for practitioners describing approaches to behaviour change	Doctors and nurses receive theory and nurses practiced skills and were supported by a facilitator	1	1	Experienced facilitator	1	270	1	2	PQ recall of supportive material and DQ on use of skills	+
Krones30	Training for family doctors on SDM, script-like decision aid, booklet for doctors, individual summary sheet for the patient	CME groups in which family doctors were trained to moderate the training for the participants	1	1	Moderators of CME group and members of the research team	1	240	1	2	PQ50–53	+
Légaré33	Online self-tutorial and an interactive workshop addressing key components of the clinical decision-making process about antibiotic treatment for acute respiratory infections in PC	Videos, exercises, decision aid	1	1	Facilitators trained during the pilot trial	1	240	1	2	PQ: the modified Control Preference Scale54–56 and a single question with a Likert scale to assess the quality of the decision made	+
Loh31	Multi-faceted intervention, physician training, decision aid and patient information leaflet	Theory, role play, discussions, modelling	1	1	Unclear	1	Unknown	1	2	PQ (PICS)50 results	+
Pill29	Training at surgery was tailored to the needs of the practice but at least 2 sessions of 3 hours with simple visual aids designed to assist the clinician in encouraging active patient participation, newsletters every 3–4 months	Discussion, demonstration of technology and often role play, continuing support by a research nurse, who mostly visited the practice nurses, 2 group meetings during the course of the study	1	1	Intervention team (GP, research nurse and clinical psychologist)	1	>360	0	3	Audiotape and telephone interview	+/−

PICS=patient perceived involvement in care scale.

^aConceptual basis—1: yes; 0: no;?: unclear

^bMulti-faced intervention—1: yes; 0: no;?: unclear.

^cIntended target of behaviour change—1: provider; 0: patient.

^dDuration of training in minutes.

^eSupportive material for patient—1: yes; 0: no.

^fStrength of the intervention—1: weak (1 session, 1 day, teaching didactics); 2: intermediate (all other interventions with training sessions between sessions); 3: strong (3≥ sessions, >1 day, opportunity to practice skills between sessions and at least one of next 3 items: follow-up support, additional materials or a supportive tool); 0: no trained intervention.

^gHow manipulation was measured? 0: no manipulation check; PQ: patient questionnaire after the encounter; DQ: provider questionnaire after the encounter.

^hManipulation check results—0= no manipulation check;? = unclear because the manipulation check failed; + = increased patient participation in the intervention group; − = less patient participation in the intervention group compared with the control group.