Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 510

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Couët, Nicolas, Desroches, Sophie, Robitaille, Hubert, Vaillancourt, Hugues, Leblanc, Annie, Turcotte, Stéphane, Elwyn, Glyn, Légaré, France·2015·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: We have no clear overview of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in the decision‐making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. Objective: To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. Search strategy: We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001–12) and gathered further data through networking. Inclusion criteria: (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health‐care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Data extraction: Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. Main results: We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient‐involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making (SDM), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0–100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM (n = 8/9) and duration of consultations (n = 8/15). Conclusions: Whatever the clinical context, few health‐care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12054

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 510

Metadata

Authors
Couët, N., Desroches, S., Robitaille, H., Vaillancourt, H., Leblanc, A., Turcotte, S., Elwyn, G., & Légaré, F.
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-04
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
542-561
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2100207436
Cited by
510
References
4
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Assessments of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/hex.12054
The paper
Couët, N., Desroches, S., Robitaille, H., Vaillancourt, H., Leblanc, A., Turcotte, S., Elwyn, G., & Légaré, F. (2015). Assessments of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12054

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.