OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop a measurement which enables research into the interdependent nature of clinical encounters. The prime objective was to develop an instrument capable of assessing the extent to which patients have been involved in (shared) decision making from two viewpoints-that of the patient and the clinician. METHODS: To develop an initial 'dyadic OPTION' instrument, the twelve original third-person items were drafted in passive, first person plural forms. Using this version initially, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were held. These were audio-recorded and analysed at the end of each round and the results used to revise the dyadic OPTION scale. RESULTS: It was possible to modify the observer OPTION instrument into an instrument for completion by both clinicians and patients after a dyadic interaction. Cognitive debriefing revealed five areas of interpretative difficulty. Each item of the observer OPTION scale underwent modification in order to develop a dyadic version of the scale. CONCLUSIONS: The dyadic OPTION scale is acceptable and comprehensible by both clinicians and public respondents. Cognitive debriefing adapted and refined an existing scale and provided confidence that the core constructs of the scale (perceived involvement in decisions making) were understood. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further validation of the dyadic OPTION scale is required prior to its use in research settings. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to develop a measurement which enables research into the interdependent nature of clinical encounters. The prime objective was to develop an instrument capable of assessing the extent to which patients have been involved in (shared) decision making from two viewpoints-that of the patient and the clinician. METHODS: To develop an initial 'dyadic OPTION' instrument, the twelve original third-person items were drafted in passive, first person plural forms. Using this version initially, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were held. These were audio-recorded and analysed at the end of each round and the results used to revise the dyadic OPTION scale. RESULTS: It was possible to modify the observer OPTION instrument into an instrument for completion by both clinicians and patients after a dyadic interaction. Cognitive debriefing revealed five areas of interpretative difficulty. Each item of the observer OPTION scale underwent modification in order to develop a dyadic version of the scale. CONCLUSIONS: The dyadic OPTION scale is acceptable and comprehensible by both clinicians and public respondents. Cognitive debriefing adapted and refined an existing scale and provided confidence that the core constructs of the scale (perceived involvement in decisions making) were understood. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further validation of the dyadic OPTION scale is required prior to its use in research settings. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Peter M Ellis; Timothy J Whelan; Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Peter Lovrics; Som D Mukherjee; Nicole Hodgson Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: France Légaré; Michel Labrecque; Michel Cauchon; Josette Castel; Stéphane Turcotte; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 8.262