OPTION(5) versus OPTION(12) instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making.

The 12-item "observing patient involvement" (OPTION(12))-instrument is commonly used to assess the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in health-related decision-making. The five-item version (OPTION(5)) claims to be a more efficient measure. In this study we compared the Dutch versions of the OPTION-instruments in terms of inter-rater agreement and correlation in outpatient doctor-patient consultations in various settings, to learn if we can safely switch to the shorter OPTION(5)-instrument. Two raters coded 60 audiotaped vascular surgery and oncology patient consultations using OPTION(12) and OPTION(5). Unweighted Cohen's kappa was used to compute inter-rater agreement on item-level. The association between the total scores of the two OPTION-instruments was investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and a Bland & Altman plot. After fine-tuning the OPTION-manuals, inter-rater agreement for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) was good to excellent (kappa range 0.69-0.85 and 0.63-0.72, respectively). Mean total scores were 23.7 (OPTION(12); SD=7.8) and 39.3 (OPTION(5); SD=12.7). Correlation between the total scores was high (r=0.71; p=0.01). OPTION(5) scored systematically higher with a wider range than OPTION(12). Both OPTION-instruments had a good inter-rater agreement and correlated well. OPTION(5) seems to differentiate better between various levels of patient involvement. The OPTION(5)-instrument is recommended for clinical application.

Stubenrouch FE ，Pieterse AH ，Falkenberg R ，Santema TK ，Stiggelbout AM ，van der Weijden T ，Aarts JA ，Ubbink DT ... -  《-》

Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement.

Elwyn G ，Edwards A ，Wensing M ，Hood K ，Atwell C ，Grol R ... -  《-》

Comparing the ability of OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) to assess shared decision-making in genetic counselling.

OPTION(12) is the most widely used tool to measure shared decision-making (SDM) in health care. A newer scale, OPTION(5), has been proposed as a more parsimonious measure that better addresses core concepts of SDM. This study compares OPTION(5) to OPTION(12) in prenatal genetic counselling. Two raters independently used OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) to score 27 clinical encounters between genetic counsellors (GC) and women with pregnancies at increased risk for genetic conditions. Global and item scores on the two instruments were compared to test concurrent validity and to identify usability in this context. Inter-rater reliability was also assessed for both instruments. Mean scores for OPTION(12) were 43.8 (SD=9.7), and for OPTION(5) were=60.6 (SD=12.5). The correlation between OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) scores was r=0.70. Inter-rater reliability was 0.70 and 0.85 for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) respectively, however mean inter-rater reliability for individual items was 0.31 and 0.63 for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) respectively. GCs exhibit SDM as measured by both OPTION instruments. OPTION(5) exhibits improved psychometric performance relative to OPTION(12), and more specifically targets the core constructs of SDM. However, refinement of OPTION instruments or manuals is needed to improve reliability and validity in GC assessment.

Vortel MA ，Adam S ，Port-Thompson AV ，Friedman JM ，Grande SW ，Birch PH ... -  《-》

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

Goss C ，Fontanesi S ，Mazzi MA ，Del Piccolo L ，Rimondini M ，Elwyn G ，Zimmermann C ... -  《PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING》

Psychometric properties of the German version of Observer OPTION(5).

Kölker M ，Topp J ，Elwyn G ，Härter M ，Scholl I ... -  《BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH》