ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2012
Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- To what extent do general practitioners involve patients in decision-making? A systematic review of studies using the OPTION-instrument.Primary health care research & development · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review of observational coding systems to assess patient-healthcare professional interactions.Patient education and counseling · 2025Pooled it
- Instruments to measure shared decision-making in outpatient chronic care: a systematic review and appraisal.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020Pooled it
- The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools.BMC research notes · 2016Pooled it
- Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Pooled it
- Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Participative development and evaluation of a communication skills-training program for oncologists-patient perspectives on training content and teaching methods.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Research progress in decision-making aids for breast cancer patients.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021Article
- A skills network approach to physicians' competence in shared decision making.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Observational
- Five Golden Rings to Measure Patient-Centered Care in Rheumatology.Arthritis care & research · 2020Review
- The OPTION Scale: Measuring Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Editorial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the psychometric properties of the German version of the 'observing patient involvement' scale (OPTION) by analysing video recordings of primary care consultations dealing with counselling in cardiovascular prevention.
designCross-sectional assessment of physician-patient interaction by two rater pairs and two experts in shared decision making (SDM).
settingPrimary care.
participantsFifteen general practitioners provided 40 videographed consultations. MEASUREMENTS: Video ratings using the OPTION instrument.
resultsMean differences on item level between the four raters were quite large. Most items were skewed towards minimal levels of shared decision making. Measures of inter-rater association showed low to moderate associations on item level and high associations on total score level. Cronbach-α of the whole scale based on the data of all four raters is 0.90 and therefore on a high level. An oblique factor analysis revealed two factors, but both factors were highly correlated so we can confirm a one-dimensional structure of the instrument. ROC analyses between the rater total scores and dichotomized expert ratings (SDM yes/no) revealed a good discriminability of the OPTION total score. Physicians with more expertise in shared decision making received higher OPTION ratings.
conclusionsThe German version of the OPTION scale is reliable at total score level. Some items need further revision in the direction of more concrete, observable behaviour. We were only able to perform a quasi-validation of the scale. Validity issues need further research efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.