Research ArticlePrevention in Practice

What should educators teach to improve preventive health care?

Roland Grad, Viola Antao, Neil R. Bell, James A. Dickinson, Raphael Rezkallah, Harminder Singh, Olga Szafran, Earle Waugh and Guylène Thériault
Canadian Family Physician August 2022; 68 (8) 583-588; DOI: https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6808583

Since 2017 the Prevention in Practice1 series of articles has been published in Canadian Family Physician. In part, this series is grounded in our experiences as physician-educators or members of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC). In this article we describe how teachers and learners can use the Prevention in Practice article series to build their mastery of preventive health care concepts. While this topic is addressed in a book for public health practitioners,2 to the best of our knowledge, no guidebook exists for the teaching of preventive care in family medicine. This points to a gap in the training curriculum.

In our most recent previous article,3 we called for action to improve the teaching of screening and preventive care during medical school and residency training, as this is when learners begin to develop their clinical reasoning and communication skills. In this article we identify 6 themes for teaching preventive health care. For each theme we suggest educators and learners cocreate actionable learning objectives. Using one of these themes as an example, we expand on what should be taught (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Developing learning objectives: An example using the doctor-patient communication theme.

Case description

Pat, a third-year medical student assigned to your clinic, has just interviewed Bara, age 55 years. (Readers of this series will recall Bara from the May 2022 Prevention in Practice article.3) In brief, Bara’s friend had a mammographically detected cancer and, while Bara does not have an elevated risk of cancer, she worries about this. At last year’s visit, you and Bara discussed the potential harms and benefits associated with screening for breast cancer with mammography, including the harm of overdiagnosis. In the end, Bara had a mammogram and nothing suspicious was seen. Today, Pat tells you Bara would like another referral. Pat has already filled out the form and hands it over for signing. You wonder: what competencies should the student acquire for the optimal management of this patient?

That Pat seems to agree with Bara’s request for an annual mammogram is itself problematic. Pat has not given much thought to the frequency of screening tests, nor to the possibility that a “more, more, more” approach to screening can lead to harm.4 Pat does not know that decreasing the frequency of screening mammography can reduce the harm of false alarms (false positives) while preserving the benefit.5 Thus, if more were truly better, the CTFPHC would have strongly recommended that doctors hunt for occult cancer with annual mammography. In its 2018 guideline update on screening for breast cancer, the CTFPHC recommended mammography for women every 2 to 3 years from 50 to 74 years of age, conditional on shared decision making (SDM).6

On the general topic of screening and screening intervals, learners need to engage in critical thinking. But what is critical thinking?

An international panel of experts defined critical thinking as the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments based on well-supported reasons. It is the ability to look for flaws in arguments and resist claims that have no supporting evidence. It also fosters the ability to be creative and constructive to generate possible explanations for findings, think of implications, and apply new knowledge to a broad range of social and personal problems.7 Referring to this work, Sharples et al considered critical thinking a skill crucial to evidence-based practice, describing it as follows:

Critical thinking encompasses a broad set of skills and dispositions, including cognitive skills (such as analysis, inference, and self regulation); approaches to specific questions or problems (orderliness, diligence, and reasonableness); and approaches to life in general (inquisitiveness, concern with being well informed, and open mindedness).8

As educators, we should ask learners to reflect on their approach to clinical encounters like this one with Bara. Knowing when to engage in SDM in relation to the strength and direction of a recommendation is central to optimizing care. To stimulate critical thinking, you can ask Pat to review an infographic on the benefits and harms of mammography screening.9 This infographic is a visual representation of the effect of screening mammography, revealing the magnitude of the potential for benefit versus harm from this intervention.

Developing educational strategies and content to explain key concepts in preventive health care is challenging. Table 110-31 presents 6 themes and associated concepts for teaching. These themes were derived inductively by analyzing the Prevention in Practice article series and the articles we recommended for additional reading. In a stepwise approach, knowledge of each theme is required to achieve learning objectives embedded in subsequent themes. We recommend teaching these concepts to first-year medical students.

View this table:
Table 1.

Teaching preventive health care: Themes and concepts in sequence.

Theme-specific learning objectives

Each theme in Table 1 can be used to develop key questions to guide dialogue between teachers and learners.10-31 In residency, these can be used in educational sessions during an academic half-day and then revisited during clinical supervision. Table 2 provides an example for the SDM subtheme. In this example, knowledge from theme 1 (epidemiology and complexity in primary care) and theme 2 (measures of outcome and effect size) represents a foundation to build upon for theme 3 and subsequent themes.

View this table:
Table 2.

Key questions and linked learning objectives for the SDM subtheme of doctor-patient communication

Teaching SDM in operationalizing screening recommendations

Medical students and residents should be taught about SDM in the context of learning how to put conditional recommendations into practice. This will enable them to better integrate evidence into decision making in practice and thus enable them to achieve competency 3.5 of the scholar role described in the CanMEDS–Family Medicine 2017 framework.32

Annually, 2 of us (R.G., G.T.) deliver educational lectures and workshops for medical students and residents at McGill University in Montréal, Que. In our lectures we explain how to operationalize the process of SDM and set expectations regarding when it should be offered (Figure 2).33

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

When to engage in SDM based on the strength and direction of a GRADE33 guideline recommendation

During the residency program we deliver a 2-hour session called SDM-FM, which is composed of a lecture and workshop. In SDM-FM, preventive interventions are used to explain when and how to operationalize key components of SDM. These components include risk communication and values clarification through the elicitation of patient preference. For the risk communication component, infographics are used to visualize risk-benefit data. We explain that, in addition to infographics, patient decision aids are tools for use at the point of care.

In the workshop we elaborate on values clarification. Through simulation and feedback, we demonstrate how decision aids facilitate the elicitation and integration of patient preference in decision making. We use role-playing scenarios based on mammography screening for breast cancer in women at 50 years of age. Residents practise their skills in these role-playing situations using decision aids from the CTFPHC or from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s inventory of decision aids.34,35

During SDM-FM sessions we explain that screening for breast cancer is a decision that is sensitive to patient preferences, where preferences are inclinations toward or away from an option. While this is relatively easy to understand in the context of clinical decision making, the concept of patient values is less intuitive. We explain that values refer to how patients view the clinical outcomes that can arise from the options to screen or not to screen. Values help determine preferences. Thus, in SDM-FM sessions we explain how values clarification considers both patient values and patient preferences.

Little is known about the willingness of family medicine residents to engage in SDM. In 2021 one of us (R.G.) explored the willingness of resident physicians at McGill University to engage in SDM and whether that willingness could be increased. Using an attitude measure with evidence of validity, we found that willingness to engage in SDM among family medicine residents varies greatly.36 Six months after our educational intervention (SDM-FM), we found a small improvement in the willingness of residents to engage in SDM.37 At a practical level, these findings suggest educators should view SDM as a skill for continual development during medical school and residency training, and they should not rely on one-off interventions such as a lecture or workshop.

Case resolution

The medical student, Pat, reviews the infographic and decision aid on breast cancer screening for women in their 50s. As with many of our patients, the infographic helps learners realize when they have overestimated the benefits and underestimated the harms of this specific intervention.38,39 Pat also appreciates observing how you discuss screening for breast cancer with Bara, following the process of SDM. As a medical student, Pat has not had an opportunity to develop longitudinal relationships that build trust and facilitate SDM with patients. Acknowledging the absence of a high-quality doctor-patient relationship can make it easier for teachers to understand one of the challenges learners face as they try to implement SDM in their practices.

Conclusion

In this article our focus has not been the how of teaching, but rather what concepts to teach in preventive health care. Learners will benefit from educational interventions designed to improve the delivery of preventive health care. We acknowledge that this is a complex topic that requires critical thinking beyond the algorithms we often teach when providing care to patients. We welcome feedback on this article from the community.

Notes

Key points

  • ▸ Many flawed assumptions or beliefs persist about the value of preventive health care interventions.

  • ▸ It is essential to promote critical thinking to improve learning outcomes and clinical decision making.

  • ▸ The Prevention in Practice series of articles in Canadian Family Physician is a resource for educators who want guidance on what to teach medical students or residents.

  • ▸ Key questions and learning objectives can be developed for themes arising from this series of articles.

Suggested reading

Brignardello-Petersen R, Carrasco-Labra A, Guyatt GH. How to interpret and use a clinical practice guideline or recommendation. JAMA 2021;326(15):1516-23. Erratum in: JAMA 2022;327(8):784.

Raffle AE, Mackie A, Gray JAM. Screening: evidence and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2019.

Canadian Family Physician. More articles from Prevention in Practice. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2022. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/by/section/Prevention%20in%20Practice. Accessed 2022 Apr 27.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    Dr Roland Grad, Dr Neil R. Bell, Dr James A. Dickinson, Dr Guylène Thériault, and Dr Harminder Singh are supported by salaries from their academic institutions. As current or former members of the CTFPHC, we are (or were) volunteers. We declare only reimbursement for travel, meals, and hotel accommodation at face-to-face meetings funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr Harminder Singh has been on advisory boards or acted as a consultant for Pendopharm, Amgen Canada, Roche Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda Canada, and Guardant Health, Inc.

  • This article is eligible for Mainpro+ certified Self-Learning credits. To earn credits, go to https://www.cfp.ca and click on the Mainpro+ link.

  • La traduction en français de cet article se trouve à https://www.cfp.ca dans la table des matières du numéro d’août 2022 à la page e241.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Canadian Family Physician
    . More articles from Prevention in Practice. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2022. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/by/section/Prevention%20in%20Practice. Accessed 2022 Apr 27.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Raffle AE,
    2. Mackie A,
    3. Gray JAM.
    Screening: evidence and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2019.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Antao V,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Thériault G,
    4. Dickinson JA,
    5. Szafran O,
    6. Singh H, et al.
    Going against the status quo in screening. Call to action to improve teaching in preventive health care. Can Fam Physician 2022;68:340-4 (Eng), e140-5 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ropeik D.
    A ‘more, more, more’ approach to cancer screening is misleading and harmful. Stat 2022 Feb 24. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/24/more-more-more-approach-cancer-screening-harmful/. Accessed 2022 Apr 25.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hubbard RA,
    2. Kerlikowske K,
    3. Flowers CI,
    4. Yankaskas BC,
    5. Zhu W,
    6. Miglioretti DL.
    Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):481-92. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med 2014;160(9):658.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Klarenbach S,
    2. Sims-Jones N,
    3. Lewin G,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Thériault G,
    6. Tonelli M, et al.
    Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. CMAJ 2018;190(49):E1441-51.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Facione PA.
    Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press; 1990. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315423. Accessed 2022 Apr 26.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sharples JM,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Mahtani KR,
    4. Chalmers I,
    5. Oliver S,
    6. Collins K, et al.
    Critical thinking in healthcare and education. BMJ 2017;357:j2234.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Breast cancer update—1000 person tool, age 50-59. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2020. Available from: https://canadiantaskforce.ca/tools-resources/breast-cancer-update/1000-person-tool-age-50-59/. Accessed 2022 Apr 27.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bell NR,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Moore AE,
    6. Kasperavicius D, et al.
    Better decision making in preventive health screening. Balancing benefits and harms. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:521-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.
    1. Singh H,
    2. Dickinson JA,
    3. Thériault G,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Groulx S,
    6. Wilson BJ, et al.
    Overdiagnosis: causes and consequences in primary health care. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:654-9 (Eng), e373-9 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.
    1. Bell NR,
    2. Dickinson JA,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Kasperavicius D,
    6. Thombs BD.
    Understanding and communicating risk. Measures of outcome and the magnitude of benefits and harms. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:181-5 (Eng), 186-91 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    1. Thombs BD,
    2. Straus SE,
    3. Moore AE; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
    . Update on task force terminology and outreach activities. Advancing guideline usability for the Canadian primary care context [Commentary]. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:12-3 (Eng), e5-7 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Groulx S,
    6. Szafran O.
    Choosing guidelines to use in your practice. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:357-62 (Eng), e225-31 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. 15.
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Pimlott N,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Szafran O,
    6. Wilson BJ, et al.
    Screening: when things go wrong. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:502-8 (Eng), e299-306 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.
    1. Thériault G,
    2. Breault P,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Bell NR,
    6. Singh H, et al.
    Preventive health care and the media. Can Fam Physician 2020;66:811-6 (Eng), e287-92 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. Grad R,
    2. Légaré F,
    3. Bell NR,
    4. Dickinson JA,
    5. Singh H,
    6. Moore AE, et al.
    Shared decision making in preventive health care. What it is; what it is not. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:682-4 (Eng), e377-80 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. 18.
    1. Lang E,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Kasperavicius D,
    6. Moore AE, et al.
    Eliciting patient values and preferences to inform shared decision making in preventive screening. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:28-31 (Eng), e13-6 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. 19.
    1. Telfer C.
    Patient perspectives. Exploring patient values and preferences [Commentary]. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:10-1 (Eng), 13-5 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. 20.
    1. Thériault G,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Dickinson JA,
    4. Breault P,
    5. Singh H,
    6. Bell NR, et al.
    To share or not to share. When is shared decision making the best option? Can Fam Physician 2020;66:327-31 (Eng), e149-54 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.
    1. Thériault G,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Singh H,
    5. Szafran O.
    Teaching shared decision making. An essential competency. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:514-6 (Eng), e321-4 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.
    1. Moore AE,
    2. Straus SE,
    3. Kasperavicius D,
    4. Bell NR,
    5. Dickinson JA,
    6. Grad R, et al.
    Knowledge translation tools in preventive health care. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:853-8 (Eng), e466-72 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.
    1. Wilson BJ,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Grad R,
    4. Thériault G,
    5. Dickinson JA,
    6. Singh H, et al.
    Practice organization for preventive screening. Can Fam Physician 2018;64:816-20 (Eng), e477-82 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Grad R,
    3. Wilson BJ,
    4. Bell NR,
    5. Singh H,
    6. Szafran O, et al.
    Quality of the screening process. An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:331-6 (Eng), e185-91 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. 25.
    1. Bell NR,
    2. Thériault G,
    3. Singh H,
    4. Grad R.
    Measuring what really matters. Screening in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:790-5 (Eng), e459-65 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. 26.
    1. Grad R,
    2. Thériault G,
    3. Singh H,
    4. Dickinson JA,
    5. Szafran O,
    6. Bell NR.
    Age to stop? Appropriate screening in older patients. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:543-8 (Eng), e329-35 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. 27.
    1. Birtwhistle R,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Thombs BD,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Dickinson JA.
    Periodic preventive health visits: a more appropriate approach to delivering preventive services. From the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care [Commentary]. Can Fam Physician 2017;63:824-6 (Eng), e449-51 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. 28.
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Thériault G,
    3. Singh H,
    4. Szafran O,
    5. Grad R.
    Rethinking screening during and after COVID-19. Should things ever be the same again? Can Fam Physician 2020;66:571-5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.
    1. Dickinson JA,
    2. Thériault G,
    3. Singh H,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Bell NR,
    6. Szafran O.
    Too soon or too late? Choosing the right screening test intervals. Can Fam Physician 2021;67:100-6 (Eng), e48-55 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  30. 30.
    1. Breault P,
    2. Nault J,
    3. Audette M,
    4. Échaquan S,
    5. Ottawa J,
    6. Szafran O, et al.
    Improving preventive screening with Indigenous peoples. Can Fam Physician 2021;67:588-93 (Eng), e217-23 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Waugh E,
    2. Myhre D,
    3. Beauvais C,
    4. Thériault G,
    5. Bell NR,
    6. Dickinson JA, et al.
    Preventive screening in women who have sex with women. Can Fam Physician 2021;67:830-6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Shaw E,
    2. Oandasan I,
    3. Fowler N
    , editors. CanMEDS–Family Medicine 2017. A competency framework for family physicians across the continuum. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2017. Available from: https://www.cfpc.ca/en/education-professional-development/educational-frameworks-and-reference-guides/canmeds-family-medicine. Accessed 2022 Mar 27.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Schünemann H,
    2. Brożek J,
    3. Guyatt G,
    4. Oxman A
    , editors. GRADE handbook: introduction to GRADE handbook. GRADE Working Group; 2013. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed 2022 Jun 5.
  34. 34.↵
    Tools & resources. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care; 2019. Available from: https://canadiantaskforce.ca/tools-resources/. Accessed 2022 Mar 23.
  35. 35.↵
    A to Z inventory of decision aids. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2019. Available from: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/azinvent.php. Accessed 2022 Mar 23.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Berkowitz J,
    2. Martinez-Camblor P,
    3. Stevens G,
    4. Elwyn G.
    The development of incorpoRATE: a measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice. Patient Educ Couns 2021;104(9):2327-37. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ferrante MA,
    2. Sandhu A,
    3. D’Souza V,
    4. Grad R,
    5. Elwyn G,
    6. Stevens G.
    Different levels of willingness for shared decision making among resident physicians [virtual poster abstract]. In: 49th North American Primary Care Research Group annual meeting; 2021 Nov 19. Available from: https://napcrg.org/conferences/2008/sessions/3159. Accessed 2022 Apr 27.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Hoffmann TC,
    2. Del Mar C.
    Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177(3):407-19.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hoffmann TC,
    2. Del Mar C.
    Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(2):274-86.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Respond to this article
What should educators teach to improve preventive health care?
Roland Grad, Viola Antao, Neil R. Bell, James A. Dickinson, Raphael Rezkallah, Harminder Singh, Olga Szafran, Earle Waugh, Guylène Thériault
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2022, 68 (8) 583-588; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6808583
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section