Fabienne E Stubenrouch1, Arwen H Pieterse2, Rijan Falkenberg3, T Katrien B Santema1, Anne M Stiggelbout2, Trudy van der Weijden3, J Annemijn W M Aarts4, Dirk T Ubbink5. 1. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. School CAPHRI, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Radboudumc University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: d.ubbink@amc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: Both OPTION-instruments had a good inter-rater agreement and correlated well. OPTION(5) seems to differentiate better between various levels of patient involvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION: The OPTION(5)-instrument is recommended for clinical application.
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: Both OPTION-instruments had a good inter-rater agreement and correlated well. OPTION(5) seems to differentiate better between various levels of patient involvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION: The OPTION(5)-instrument is recommended for clinical application.
Authors: Stephanie M Harman; Rebecca Blankenburg; Jason M Satterfield; Brad Monash; Stephanie Rennke; Patrick Yuan; Debbie S Sakai; Eric Huynh; Ian Chua; Joan F Hilton Journal: Acad Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.893
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: Haske van Veenendaal; Loes J Peters; Dirk T Ubbink; Fabienne E Stubenrouch; Anne M Stiggelbout; Paul Lp Brand; Gerard Vreugdenhil; Carina Gjm Hilders Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-04-06
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