The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision‐making tasks
Open accessAbstract
Objective To examine the psychometric properties of a revised scale, named ‘observing patient involvement in decision making’ (OPTION), by analysing its reapplication to a sample of routine primary care consultations. The OPTION instrument assesses to what degree clinicians involve patients in decision making. Design Cross‐sectional assessment of medical interaction by two calibrated raters. Setting Primary care. Participants Twenty‐one general practitioners provided 186 consultations for assessment. Measurements Observational score using the OPTION instrument. Results Compared with the first version of the OPTION scale, the revised scale that uses a magnitude instead of an attitude scale, when applied to the same data set, resulted in improvement in the scale's reliability and to lower scores for the levels of involvement achieved by the practitioners. Factor analysis confirms that it is acceptable to regard the scale as a single construct. Although there is moderate variability when raters are assessed on an item by item basis, the agreements between raters at the level of the overall OPTION score is high (the intraclass correlation coefficient scores for total OPTION score was 0.77), a level that is acceptable for the evaluation of a set of consultations per practitioner (e.g. between 5 and 10 consultations), where aggregate scores would be used for determining overall performance. Conclusions We conclude that OPTION is sufficiently reliable to be used for formal assessment at the level of the whole instrument (all 12 items).
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Evolving General Practice Consultation in Britain: Issues of Length and Context
Freeman, G. K., Horder, J. P., Howie, J. G. R., Hungin, A. P., Hill, A. P., Shah, N. C., & Wilson, A. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880 · Cited by 195
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
Self-citationWhere Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes
Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2015) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x14551638 · Cited by 1,214
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Weijden, T. V. D., Edwards, A., & May, C. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-57 · Cited by 159
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Elwyn, G., Hutchings, H., Edwards, A., Rapport, F., Wensing, M., Cheung, W., & Grol, R.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-02-15
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-42
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2120378169
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision‐making tasks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x
- The paper
- Elwyn, G., Hutchings, H., Edwards, A., Rapport, F., Wensing, M., Cheung, W., & Grol, R. (2005). The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision‐making tasks. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x
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.