Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 496

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 access
Elwyn, Glyn, Hutchings, Hayley, Edwards, Adrian, Rapport, Frances, Wensing, Michel, Cheung, Wai‐Yee, Grol, Richard·2005·Health Expectations

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x

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 496

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.