Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-bxbhv Total loading time: 0.471 Render date: 2023-02-04T12:21:10.265Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The assessment of patient involvement across consultation. The Italian version of the Option Scale*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2011

Summary

Aim – To present the Italian version of the OPTION (observing patient involvement) rating scale, developed in UK by Elwyn et al. (2005), and its psychometric characteristics, together with some findings when applied on the consultations transcripts of a group of Italian General Practitioners. Methods – The OPTION scale assesses the extent to which clinicians involve patients in decisions and consists of 12 items to be rated on a 5 point scale (from 0 - behaviour not observed to 4 -high standard). The scale was applied to 235 transcripts of audiotaped consultations conducted by 6 male GPs. Interrater and test-retest reliability and internal validity indices were calculated on a subsample of 30 transcripts. Results – The Italian language version of OPTION showed good psychometric properties, similar to those reported for the original version. The ratings obtained for 235 consultations showed for each OPTION item a skewed distribution: the majority of scores (> 70%) were between 0 (behaviour absent) and 2 (minimum skill level). Conclusions – The Italian language version of OPTION seems a reliable instrument to assess patient involvement in primary care settings also in Italy. The clustering of low scores confirms previous findings that clinicians without a specific training obtain very low levels of patient involvement in the decision making process.

Declaration of Interest: None.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Il manuale e il pacchetto per la formazione sono disponibili, contattando direttamente il professor Glyn Elwyn (elwyng@cardiff.ac.uk), per quanto riguarda lo strumento nella sua versione originale in lingua inglese. Per quanto riguarda invece lo strumento nella versione italiana, l'utilizzo è sempre vincolato all'autorizzazione del Prof. Elwyn. Il manuale e il pacchetto formativo in italiano sono disponibili a richiesta al primo autore.

References

Bibliografia

Beaton, D.E, Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25, 31863191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brink-Muinen, A., Bensing, J.M. & Kerssens, J.J. (1998). Gender and communication style in general practice. Differences between women's health care and regular health care. Medical Care 36, 100106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charles, C., Gafni, A. & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 44, 681692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, A., Bendelow, G., Fulford, B. & Williams, S. (2003). Evaluating the influence of implicit models of mental disorder on processes of shared decision making within community-based multi-disciplinary teams. Social Science and Medicine 56, 15571570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulter, A. (2005). Shared decision-making: the debate continues. Health Expectation 8, 9596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Piccolo, L., Saltini, A. & Zimmermann, C. (1998). Which patients talk about stressful life events and social problems to the general practitioner? Psychological Medicine 28, 12891299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Mowle, S., Wensing, M., Wilkinson, C., Kinnersley, P. & Grol, R. (2001). Measuring the involvement of patients in shared decision-making: a systematic review of instruments. Patient Education and Counseling 43, 522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Wensing, M., Hood, K., Atwell, C. & Grol, R. (2003). Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality & Safety in Health Care 12, 9399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Hood, K., Robling, M., Atwell, C., Russell, I., Wensing, M. & Grol, R. (2004). Achieving involvement: process out-comes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Family Practice 21, 337346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwyn, G., Hutchings, H., Edwards, A., Rapport, F., Wensing, M., Cheung, W.Y. & Grol, R. (2005a). The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expectation 8, 3442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Edwards, A, Wensing, M, Grol, R. (2005b). Shared Decision Making. Measurement using the OPTION instrument. Cardiff University: Cardiff.Google Scholar
Goss, C., Fontanesi, S., Mazzi, M.A., Del Piccolo, L., Rimondini, M., Elwyn, G. & Zimmermann, C. (2007). Shared decision making: the reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy. Patient Education and Counseling 66, 296302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamann, J., Leucht, S. & Kissling, W. (2003). Shared decision making in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 107, 403409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis J.R, Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33,159174.Google Scholar
Lin, L.I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, P., Everitt, H., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Moore, M., Gould, C., Ferrier, K. & Payne, S. (2001). Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations. British Medical Journal 323, 908911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mead, N. & Bower, P. (2002). Patient-centred consultations and out-comes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling 48, 5161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, L.M., de Haes, J.C., Hoos, A.M. & Lammes, F.B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Social Science and. Medicine. 40, 903918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paccaloni, M., Pozzan, T. & Zimmermann, C. (2004). Being informed and involved in treatment: what do psychiatric patients think? A review. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 13, 270283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paccaloni, M., Moretti, F. & Zimmermann, C. (2005). Giving information optiand involving in treatment: what do psychiatrists think? A review. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 14, 198216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paccaloni, M., Pozzan, T., Rimondini, M. & Zimmermann, C. (2006). [Knowledge and informative needs of patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, explored with focus group methods], Epidemioogia e Psichiatria Sociale 15, 128137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roter, D.L., Hall, J.A. & Aoki, Y. (2002). Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 288, 756764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R.C. (2002). Patient-Centered Interviewing. An Evidence-based Method. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Stewart, M., Brown, J.B., Weston, W.W., Me Whinney, I.R., Me William, C.L. & Freeman, T.R. (1995). Patient-centered Medicine Transforming the Clinical Method. SAGE Pubblication: London.Google Scholar
Walter, S.D., Eliasziw, M. & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optiand mal designs for reliability studies. Statistic in Medicine 17, 101110.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzels, R., Geest, T.A., Wensing, M., Ferreira, P.L., Grol, R. & Baker, R. (2004). GP's view on involvement of older patients: an European qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 53, 183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The assessment of patient involvement across consultation. The Italian version of the Option Scale*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The assessment of patient involvement across consultation. The Italian version of the Option Scale*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The assessment of patient involvement across consultation. The Italian version of the Option Scale*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *