ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Comparing the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to the OPTION Scale - an attempt to establish convergent validity.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Instruments to measure shared decision-making in outpatient chronic care: a systematic review and appraisal.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2020Pooled it
- Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Shared decision-making behaviours in health professionals: a systematic review of studies based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Pooled it
- Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Trial
- Shared decision-making in antihypertensive therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2013Trial
- Psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the shared decision‑making questionnaire in patients undergoing emergency surgery.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Article
- Psychometric Validation and Reliability of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Response process validity of the 9-item shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a cognitive interview study with patients with cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Translation and Psychometric Evaluation in Cancer Care of the German Version of collaboRATEHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- A decision aid is not the quick fix for improving shared decision-making in advanced Parkinson's disease: results of a mixed methods feasibility study.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making in physiotherapy: a cross-sectional study of patient involvement factors and issues in Japan.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Application of the skills network approach to measure physician competence in shared decision making based on self-assessment.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Making shared decisions with older men selecting treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH): a pilot randomized trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Psychometric Properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9): Validation of the Italian Version in a Large Psychiatric Clinical Sample.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in general practice from a patient perspective. A cross-sectional survey.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile there has been a clear move towards shared decision-making (SDM) in the last few years, the measurement of SDM-related constructs remains challenging. There has been a call for further psychometric testing of known scales, especially regarding validity aspects.
objectiveTo test convergent validity of the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) by comparing it to the OPTION Scale.
designCross-sectional study. SETTING AND
participantsData were collected in outpatient care practices. Patients suffering from chronic diseases and facing a medical decision were included in the study.
methodsConsultations were evaluated using the OPTION Scale. Patients completed the SDM-Q-9 after the consultation. First, the internal consistency of both scales and the inter-rater reliability of the OPTION Scale were calculated. To analyse the convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9, correlation between the patient (SDM-Q-9) and expert ratings (OPTION Scale) was calculated.
resultsA total of 21 physicians provided analysable data of consultations with 63 patients. Analyses revealed good internal consistency of the SDM-Q-9 and limited internal consistency of the OPTION Scale. Inter-rater reliability of the latter was less than optimal. Association between the total scores of both instruments was weak with a Spearman correlation of r = 0.19 and did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: By the use of the OPTION Scale convergent validity of the SDM-Q-9 could not be established. Several possible explanations for this result are discussed.
conclusionThis study shows that the measurement of SDM remains challenging.
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.