Shared decision making: The reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy

Goss, Claudia; Fontanesi, Silvia; Mazzi, Maria Angela; Piccolo, Lidia Del; Rimondini, Michela; Elwyn, Glyn; Zimmermann, Christa

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.002

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found high associations on the level of the total score. This confirms the results of the other reliability studies 10,15,16,22 and leads us to the conclusion that the total score is an acceptable parameter for further use. The high associations between the dichotomized SDM ratings of the four raters and their respective total OPTION scores highlight that the raters incorporated their OPTION ratings into their overall decision whether SDM took place or not.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…10,15,16,22 Like Elwyn et al, 15 we calculated an exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation which also resulted in a two-factor solution. The correlation between the two factors in our solution is r = 0.53.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reliability of the Italian version of the OPTION scale was assessed by two raters rating thirty consultation transcripts. 16 Weighted kappa values ranged from 0.29 to 0.73, the intraclass correlation coefficients for the total score at test and retest were 0.85 and 0.81, and CronbachÕs a was 0.82. The distributions of the single items were skewed with the majority between 0 (behaviour absent) and 2 (minimum skill level).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale

Hirsch

Keller

Müller‐Engelmann

et al. 2011

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine the psychometric properties of the German version of the Ôobserving patient involvementÕ scale (OPTION) by analysing video recordings of primary care consultations dealing with counselling in cardiovascular prevention.Design Cross-sectional assessment of physician-patient interaction by two rater pairs and two experts in shared decision making (SDM). Setting Primary care.Participants Fifteen general practitioners provided 40 videographed consultations.Measurements Video ratings using the OPTION instrument. Results Mean differences on item level between the four raters were quite large. Most items were skewed towards minimal levels of shared decision making. Measures of inter-rater association showed low to moderate associations on item level and high associations on total score level. Cronbach-a of the whole scale based on the data of all four raters is 0.90 and therefore on a high level. An oblique factor analysis revealed two factors, but both factors were highly correlated so we can confirm a one-dimensional structure of the instrument. ROC analyses between the rater total scores and dichotomized expert ratings (SDM yes ⁄ no) revealed a good discriminability of the OPTION total score. Physicians with more expertise in shared decision making received higher OPTION ratings.Conclusions The German version of the OPTION scale is reliable at total score level. Some items need further revision in the direction of more concrete, observable behaviour. We were only able to perform a quasi-validation of the scale. Validity issues need further research efforts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale

Hirsch

Keller

Müller‐Engelmann

et al. 2011

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although item 9 is consistently associated with low reliabilities across studies, ICCs vary greatly for the remaining items. For example, inter-rater reliability for item 8 was close to zero in some studies [7,8], but very high in other studies [14,19]. The reasons for the large differences in inter-rater reliabilities across studies of the same items are unclear, but might be related to the conditions of the rating procedures.…”

Section: Agreement Across Ratersmentioning

confidence: 97%

The OPTION scale for the assessment of shared decision making (SDM): methodological issues

Nicolai

Moshagen

Eich

et al. 2012

Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In short, shared decision-making is unlikely to increase consultation time, result in anxiety or leave people feeling unsupported. It is unlikely that clinicians are already doing shared decision-making, as some commentators have suggested (Loh et al 2006;Goossensen et al 2007;Goss et al 2007); and a number of studies indicate that most people want to be involved (McKinstry, 2000;Hamann et al 2005;O'Neal et al 2008;Simmons et al 2011), and are capable of being involved in decision-making (Hamann et al 2006); and it is important not to exclude vulnerable people from decision-making processes as this risks increased health disparities. Efforts have been made to promote shared decision-making for marginalised groups (Muscat et al 2015); however, decision aids often fail to accommodate individuals with low health literacy (McCaffery et al 2013).…”

Section: Misconceptions About Shared Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spot the difference: shared decision-making and supported decision-making in mental health

Simmons

Gooding

2017

Ir. j. psychol. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Respecting a person's choices about the mental health services they do or do not use is a mark of quality support, and is often pursued for moral reasons, as a rights imperative and to improve outcomes. Yet, providing information and assistance for people making decisions about the mental health services can be a complex process, and has been approached in various ways. Two prominent approaches to this end are 'shared decision-making' and 'supported decision-making'. This article considers each of these approaches, discussing points of similarity and difference and considering how the two might complement one another. By exploring the contribution that each approach can make, we conclude by proposing how future application of these approaches can account for the broader context of decisions, including support for ongoing decision-making; the multitude of service settings where decision-making occurs; and the diversity in supportive practices required to promote active involvement.

show abstract

Shared decision making: The reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy

Cited by 43 publications

References 24 publications

Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale

Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale

The OPTION scale for the assessment of shared decision making (SDM): methodological issues

Spot the difference: shared decision-making and supported decision-making in mental health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About