The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Measuring the process of shared decision making is a challenge, which constitutes a barrier to research and implementation. The aim of the study was to report the development of CollaboRATE, brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We used the following stages: (1) item formulation; (2) cognitive interviews; (3) item refinement; and (4) pilot testing of final items. Participants were over 18 years old, recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. RESULTS: The key finding of this study is that developing a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making requires a move away from terms such as 'decisions', 'options' and 'preferences'. Although technically correct, these terms act as barriers. They are often unfamiliar, and they also implicitly assume that patients are willing to take active roles in decision making; whereas patients are often unaware that decisions are required, or have taken place, never mind feel that they could or should have participated in them. CONCLUSION: These methods have allowed us to develop a brief, patient-reported measure of shared decision making that is highly accessible to intended users. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The potential strength of the CollaboRATE will be the ability for completion in less than 30s, and across a range of routine settings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903 · Cited by 20,808
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485 · cited 1×
“Despite the limited use of patient-reported feedback by health professionals, such feedback mechanisms have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical practice [42], and patient participation in medical care has also been associated with a range of positive health outcomes [43].”
BackgroundCharles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137 · cited 1×
“Initial item formulations were based on core aspects of the principles of shared decision making [44,45,47,48], and on a detailed analysis of existing measurement challenges [1].”
MethodValidation of a Decisional Conflict Scale
O'Connor, A. M. (1995) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9501500105 · Cited by 2,452
Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design
Willis, G. (2004) · Cited by 1,934
Health Measurement Scales--A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Waclawski, E. R. (2010) · Occupational Medicine · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqp179 · Cited by 1,874
An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters
Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010 · Cited by 1,621
Validation of a Decision Regret Scale
Brehaut, J. C., O'Connor, A. M., Wood, T. J., Hack, T. F., Siminoff, L., Gordon, E., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2003) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x03256005 · Cited by 1,452
Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play?
Degner, L. F., & Sloan, J. A. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9 · Cited by 1,008
Cited by
Edbrooke-Childs, J., Edridge, C., Averill, P., Delane, L., Hollis, C., Craven, M. P., Martin, K., Feltham, A., Jeremy, G., Deighton, J., et al. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/11677 · Cited by 39
“…Patient Activation Measure [4] to assess young people’s empowerment and self-management of their mental health and well-being, (2) the CollaboRATE [38] and the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire 9 [39] to assess shared decision making, (3) the Youth Empowerment Scale—Mental Health [40] to…”
MethodFortuna, K. L., Myers, A., Brooks, J., Collins-Pisano, C., Marceau, S., Pratt, S., Lyons, K., Walker, R., Thompson, S., Greene, K., et al. (2021) · Patient Experience Journal · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1533 · Cited by 15
Curtis, J. R., Lee, R. Y., Brumback, L. C., Kross, E. K., Downey, L., Torrence, J., Heywood, J., LeDuc, N., Mallon Andrews, K., Im, J., et al. (2022) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2022.106879 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Elwyn, G., Barr, P. J., Grande, S. W., Thompson, R., Walsh, T., & Ozanne, E. M.
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 102-107
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965881829
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 18.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
- The paper
- Elwyn, G., Barr, P. J., Grande, S. W., Thompson, R., Walsh, T., & Ozanne, E. M. (2013). Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
