Medical Decision Making
Using a ‘talk’ model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION5 Item

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.005Get rights and content

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 OPTION12 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 OPTION12 Item that were seldom observed or not aligned to a robust construct, we propose Observer OPTION5 Item.

Conclusion

Although widely used, Observer OPTION12 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 OPTION5 Item requires evaluation; we hope that it will be useful as both a research tool and as a formative measure of clinical practice.

Introduction

Measuring shared decision making is a challenge, despite reasonable consensus about its core characteristics [1]. To achieve shared decision making, providers should ensure that patients are informed about options, and supported to deliberate about those options. Both patients and providers should consider the role of evidence as well as each other's preferences as they deliberate. Ideally, end-users, that is, patients, would be asked to assess whether or not they experienced shared decision making. However, despite many efforts over the last decade to develop valid, reliable patient-reported measures of shared decision making, it has proved difficult to be confident that these measures are accurate assessments of the target phenomenon [2], [3].

The difficulty probably lies in the novelty of the construct. When asked whether they have been ‘involved in decisions’ patients tend to interpret the question as one about satisfaction, either with their provider or with their experience of care [3], [4]. The data from patient-reported measures of shared decision making typically provide scores at the upper end of scales, with relatively little variation [5], [6]. However, data from ratings of audio and videotapes, i.e. observational process assessments such as the Observer OPTION12 Item measure [7], show that practitioners seldom achieve high levels of performance in tasks characteristic of shared decision making, a finding confirmed by Couët's recent review of 29 studies [8], and by studies using other observational measures [9], [10], [11], [12]. Over the last decade, further consensus has been achieved about the characteristics of shared decision making [1], [13]. We therefore considered it opportune to revisit the issue of observational measurement to evaluate whether improvements could be made to the existing Observer OPTION12 Item [7].

There are a number of observational measures of shared decision making or efforts to provide ‘decision support’ to patients. These include Braddock's Informed Decision Making Scale [9], the Rochester Participatory Decision Making Scale [11] and Stacey's Decision Support Analysis Tool [12]. The Observer OPTION12 Item measure is used to assess audio- or video-recordings of clinical encounters. Twelve items are scored and re-scaled to provide a score between 0 and 100, indicating “the extent to which providers involve patients in [shared] decision making” [7]. However, application of the measure over the last decade has revealed areas where improvement could be made. Observers, using Observer OPTION12 Item to assess provider performance have noted the relative lack of attention to the elicitation of patient preferences, an important weakness of the measure [7].

Studies show significant variation in inter-rater agreement, particularly at item rather than global-score levels [8]. There are items that are not specific to the construct of involving patients in decision making, and some items specify behaviors that seem to be idealized constructions rarely observed in routine practice. For example, item 3 in the original instrument, see Table 1, specifies whether providers ask patients about their preferred information format, e.g. risk portrayal in graphs or number formats. Although plausible, this level of checking is unlikely in routine care. The inclusion of items that are never observed contributes to floor effects in the measure.

We appreciate that a shorter tool risks not being able to cover the specified construct of shared decision making fully, and might therefore be less valid and reliable, and this risk will need to be empirically tested in future studies. Our hypothesis is that a more focused, briefer measure would offer the following potential benefits:

  • (1)

    Improved construct validity, given a focus on a set of behaviors specific to shared decision making;

  • (2)

    Improved reliability because raters would be required to assess fewer, more relevant, and defined, observable behaviors;

  • (3)

    Increased efficiency because of shorter completion time.

The aim of this study therefore is to propose a shorter version of Observer OPTION12 Item based on our analysis of published shared decision making models.

Section snippets

Methods

We addressed this aim by analyzing published shared decision making models to confirm a recently proposed conceptual framework [14]. We then revised the existing measure based on empirical data from a large observational study of clinical practice in Canada where Observer OPTION measure was used, as well as a review of all existing studies using the OPTION instrument [8], and our own experience in providing training for over 20 researchers to use the Observer OPTION12 Item measure since 2001.

Analysis of shared decision making models

We examined all the models in Makoul and Clayman's [1] table of prominently cited models [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. In addition, from the search, after removing duplicates, our search identified 247 candidate articles. We excluded 228 by screening titles and abstracts, and assessed 19 full text articles. Of these 19, we excluded 11 citations [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and included 8 for analysis, alongside those identified

Discussion

By combining data from three sources, experiential, qualitative, and quantitative, we have proposed a new observational measure of shared decision making, which is briefer than the previous Observer OPTION12 Item scale. This new measure is based on a more robust conceptual model, and offers the ability to give credit to providers who make efforts to engage patients in decision making processes over multiple encounters.

Although we were able to use quantitative data from a large observational

Competing interests

All authors declare they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the significant contribution of Albert Mulley and Chris Trimble in refining the Talk Model of Shared Decision Making, and to all collaborators in the MAGIC Program in the UK for the early work on this model. Thanks also to Thomas Mead, information scientist for search support, to Stuart Grande, Thomas Walsh, Rachel Thompson and Paul Barr for contributions and comments.

References (54)

  • L. Kriston et al.

    A latent variable framework for modeling dyadic measures in research on shared decision-making

    Zeitschrift Für Evidenz, Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen

    (2012)
  • R. Brindis et al.

    President's page: employing shared decision-making models to improve care and patient value: a cardiovascular professional initiative

    J Amer Coll Cardiol

    (2010)
  • D. Stacey et al.

    Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: a theory analysis

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2010)
  • E. Murray et al.

    Shared decision-making in primary care: tailoring the Charles model to fit the context of general practice

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2006)
  • V. Wirtz et al.

    Patient–doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation – a critical analysis of models

    Soc Sci Med

    (2006)
  • A. Moreau et al.

    What perceptions do patients have of decision making (DM)?. Toward an integrative patient-centered care model. A qualitative study using focus-group interviews

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2012)
  • M. Vanstone et al.

    Information-sharing to promote informed choice in prenatal screening in the spirit of the SOGC clinical practice guideline: a proposal for an alternative model

    J Obstet Gynaecol Can

    (2012)
  • F. Geiger et al.

    Of blind men and elephants: suggesting SDM-MASS as a compound measure for shared decision making integrating patient, physician and observer views

    Zeitschrift Für Evidenz Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen

    (2012)
  • G.W. Saba et al.

    Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care

    Ann Fam Med

    (2006)
  • G. Elwyn et al.

    The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks

    Health Expect

    (2005)
  • N. Couët et al.

    Assessments of the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument

    Health Expect

    (2013)
  • C. Braddock et al.

    How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions: informed decision making in the outpatient setting

    J Gen Intern Med

    (1997)
  • C. Braddock et al.

    Informed decision making in outpatient setting: time to get back to basics

    J Amer Med Assoc

    (1999)
  • C. Shields et al.

    Rochester participatory decision-making scale (RPAD): reliability and validity

    Ann Fam Med

    (2005)
  • V.A. Entwistle et al.

    Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance

    J R Soc Med

    (2012)
  • G. Elwyn et al.

    Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice

    J Gen Intern Med

    (2012)
  • F. Légaré et al.

    EXACKTE2: exploiting the clinical consultation as a knowledge transfer and exchange environment: a study protocol

    Implement Sci

    (2009)
  • Cited by (137)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text