ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014
The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 9 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 201 papers, 14 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.
Using Multimedia Digital Health to Enable and Engage Pediatric Inpatients and Their Parents: A Pilot Study
Creating a Zone of Openness to Increase Patient-Centered Care
Right For Me: Birth Control Decisions Made Easier
Comparative Effectiveness of Encounter Decision Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Socioeconomic Strata
Family Planning Ahead
Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention
Measuring and Improving Coproduction Using coopeRATE: A Before-and-after Study in Adult Cystic Fibrosis Care
Feasibility of a Goal-based Agenda Setting Intervention for Informing Conversations in Adult Cystic Fibrosis Care
Enhancing Engagement by Integrating Goals and Concerns That Matter to Patients
Who cites it
201 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Shared decision-making interventions in neuro-oncology practice: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Can electronic assessment tools improve the process of shared decision-making? A systematic review.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2023Pooled 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
- 2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Guideline
- 2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Guideline
- Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2018Pooled 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
- Depressive Symptoms After Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of shared decision making during the patient-carer encounter: a systematic review of tools.BMC research notes · 2016Pooled it
- Effect of a patient decision aid on shared decision making in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer: a randomized controlled trial.The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Effect of an in-consult patient decision aid on decisional quality and involvement for patients with severe hip or knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Trial
- Patients' experiences of a patient-centred polypharmacy medication review intervention: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Trial
- Patient Portal Engagement in Oncology: Results From the NU IMPACT Study in a Large Health Care System.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Trial
- Equity Using Interventions for Pain and Depression (EQUIPD): A pilot randomized trial.The journal of pain · 2025Trial
- Discussing expected long-term quality of life in the ICU: effect on experiences and outcomes of patients, family, and clinicians-a randomized clinical trial.Intensive care medicine · 2025Trial
141 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centered health care is a central component of current health policy agendas. Shared decision making (SDM) is considered to be the pinnacle of patient engagement and methods to promote this are becoming commonplace. However, the measurement of SDM continues to prove challenging. Reviews have highlighted the need for a patient-reported measure of SDM that is practical, valid, and reliable to assist implementation efforts. In consultation with patients, we developed CollaboRATE, a 3-item measure of the SDM process.
objectiveThere is a need for scalable patient-reported measure of the SDM process. In the current project, we assessed the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE.
methodsA representative sample of the US population were recruited online and were randomly allocated to view 1 of 6 simulated doctor-patient encounters in January 2013. Three dimensions of SDM were manipulated in the encounters: (1) explanation of the health issue, (2) elicitation of patient preferences, and (3) integration of patient preferences. Participants then completed CollaboRATE (possible scores 0-100) in addition to 2 other patient-reported measures of SDM: the 9-item Shared Decision Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Doctor Facilitation subscale of the Patient's Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). A subsample of participants was resurveyed between 7 and 14 days after the initial survey. We assessed CollaboRATE's discriminative, concurrent, and divergent validity, intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change.
resultsThe final sample consisted of 1341 participants. CollaboRATE demonstrated discriminative validity, with a significant increase in CollaboRATE score as the number of core dimensions of SDM increased from zero (mean score: 46.0, 95% CI 42.4-49.6) to 3 (mean score 85.8, 95% CI 83.2-88.4). CollaboRATE also demonstrated concurrent validity with other measures of SDM, excellent intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change; however, divergent validity was not demonstrated.
conclusionsThe fast and frugal nature of CollaboRATE lends itself to routine clinical use. Further assessment of CollaboRATE in real-world settings is required.
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.