BACKGROUND: Current models of the medical consultation emphasize shared decision-making (SDM), whereby the expertise of both the doctor and the patient are recognised and seen to equally contribute to the consultation. The evidence regarding the desirability and effectiveness of the SDM approach is often conflicting. It is proposed that the conflicts are due to the nature of assessment, with current assessments from the perspective of an outside observer. AIMS: To empirically assess perceived involvement in the medical consultation using the dyadic OPTION instrument. METHOD: 36 simulated medical consultations were organised between general practitioners and standardized- patients, using the observer OPTION and the newly developed dyadic OPTION instruments. RESULTS: SDM behaviours observed in the consultations were seen to depend on both members of the doctor and patient dyad, rather than each in isolation. Thus a dyadic approach to measurement is supported. CONCLUSIONS: This current study highlights the necessity for a dyadic approach to assessment and introduces a novel research instrument: the dyadic OPTION instrument.
BACKGROUND: Current models of the medical consultation emphasize shared decision-making (SDM), whereby the expertise of both the doctor and the patient are recognised and seen to equally contribute to the consultation. The evidence regarding the desirability and effectiveness of the SDM approach is often conflicting. It is proposed that the conflicts are due to the nature of assessment, with current assessments from the perspective of an outside observer. AIMS: To empirically assess perceived involvement in the medical consultation using the dyadic OPTION instrument. METHOD: 36 simulated medical consultations were organised between general practitioners and standardized- patients, using the observer OPTION and the newly developed dyadic OPTION instruments. RESULTS: SDM behaviours observed in the consultations were seen to depend on both members of the doctor and patient dyad, rather than each in isolation. Thus a dyadic approach to measurement is supported. CONCLUSIONS: This current study highlights the necessity for a dyadic approach to assessment and introduces a novel research instrument: the dyadic OPTION instrument.
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: Aaron L Leppin; Katherine M Humeniuk; Cara Fernandez; Victor M Montori; Kathleen Yost; Ashok Kumbamu; Gail Geller; Jon C Tilburt Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: France Légaré; Michel Labrecque; Michel Cauchon; Josette Castel; Stéphane Turcotte; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Aliza Ben-Zacharia; Meagan Adamson; Allison Boyd; Paula Hardeman; Jennifer Smrtka; Bryan Walker; Tracy Walker Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2018 Nov-Dec
Authors: Alessandra Solari; Andrea Giordano; Jurgen Kasper; Jelena Drulovic; An van Nunen; Liina Vahter; Frederique Viala; Erika Pietrolongo; Maura Pugliatti; Carlo Antozzi; Davide Radice; Sascha Köpke; Christoph Heesen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ariëtte R J Sanders; Inge van Weeghel; Maartje Vogelaar; William Verheul; Ron H M Pieters; Niek J de Wit; Jozien M Bensing Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 2.267