Glyn Elwyn1, Maka Tsulukidze, Adrian Edwards, France Légaré, Robert Newcombe. 1. The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, USA; Cochrane Institute for Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, UK. Electronic address: glynelwyn@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION(12 Item). RESULTS: Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION(12 Item) that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION(5 Item). CONCLUSION: Although widely used, Observer OPTION(12 Item) did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Observer OPTION(5 Item) requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To propose a revised Observer OPTION measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We analyzed published models to identify the core components of a parsimonious conceptual framework of shared decision making. By using this framework, we developed a revised measure combining data from an observational study of clinical practice in Canada with our experience of using Observer OPTION(12 Item). RESULTS: Our conceptual framework for shared decision making composed of justifying deliberative work, followed by the steps of describing options, information exchange, preference elicitation, and preference integration. By excluding items in Observer OPTION(12 Item) that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION(5 Item). CONCLUSION: Although widely used, Observer OPTION(12 Item) did not give sufficient attention to preference elicitation and integration, and included items that were not specific to a core construct of shared decision making. We attempted to remedy these shortcomings by proposing a shorter, more focused measure. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Observer OPTION(5 Item) requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.
Authors: Inge Henselmans; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Meltem Tokat; Ellen G Engelhardt; Pomme E A van Maarschalkerweerd; Marleen Kunneman; Petronella B Ottevanger; Serge E Dohmen; Geert-Jan Creemers; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Filip Y F L de Vos; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-06-29
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: Hayan Jouni; Raad A Haddad; Tariq S Marroush; Sherry-Ann Brown; Teresa M Kruisselbrink; Erin E Austin; Khader Shameer; Emma M Behnken; Rajeev Chaudhry; Victor M Montori; Iftikhar J Kullo Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Susan T Vadaparampil; Richard L Street; Tanina Foster Moore; Claudine Isaacs; Hyo S Han; Bianca Augusto; Jennifer Garcia; Katherine Lopez; Matilda Brilleman; Jinani Jayasekera; Susan Eggly Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-09-03
Authors: Bastiaan T van Hoorn; Luke X van Rossenberg; Xander Jacobs; George S I Sulkers; Mark van Heijl; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.755