Cited by 25Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Completing the third person's perspective on patients’ involvement in medical decision-making: approaching the full picture

Kasper, Jürgen, Hoffmann, Frauke, Heesen, Christoph, Köpke, Sascha, Geiger, Friedemann·2012·Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen

Abstract

Objective Shared decision making is based on the idea of cooperation and partnership between patients and doctors. In this concept both parties may initiate and perform specific decision-making steps. However, the common observation-based instruments focus solely on doctors' behaviour. Content and quality of information provided to involve patients in medical decisions are hardly considered in evaluation of SDM. This study investigates the advantages of a revised observer inventory taking into account these aspects.Methods Based on the OPTION scale, a more comprehensive observation-based inventory was developed, additionally considering both the patient-sided indicators for patient involvement and the criteria of evidence-based patient information. The inventory comprises three scales (doctor, patient, doctor-patient dyad) and 15 indicators each. Rater training and re-analyses of 76 consultations previously analysed using the OPTION scale were conducted. Convergent validities were calculated between the observer-based scales and the patients' ratings on the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, the Decisional Conflict Scale and the Control Preference Scale.Results Interrater reliabilities of the revised scales were high (r=.87 to .74) and even higher when only the dyadic perspective was coded (.86). The revised inventory provided additional information on the involvement taking place. No substantive correlations were found between observation-based and patients' subjective judgments.Conclusion The observers' perspective on patient involvement needs to consider patient activities. Inconsistencies of patients' and observers' judgements concerning patient participation need further investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.04.005

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Six existing decision aids about location of care for the elderly were found, but they were excluded because they targeted specific populations or did not fulfill all IPDAS minimal criteria.

    “We found six existing DAs about location of care for the elderly [20–22, 27]. However, these were excluded as they targeted specific populations (e.g., veterans, elderly people with dementia, caregivers only), or did not fulfill all IPDAS minimal criteria.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kasper, J., Hoffmann, F., Heesen, C., Köpke, S., & Geiger, F.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein (DE)
Corresponding author
Kasper, Jürgen
Venue
Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
106
Issue
4
Pages
275-283
ISSN
1865-9217 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070190131
Cited by
25
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Biogen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
shared decision-making, patient involvement, patient information quality, evidence-based patient information, inter-rater reliability, convergent validity, Decisional Conflict Scale, Control Preferences Scale
MeSH terms
Conflict, Psychological, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Humans, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Observer Variation

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