Top

BMC Primary Care

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the observer OPTION⁵ scale

Authors: Zhaojuan Chen, Xuefei Bai, Guanghui Jin, Xin Tao, Guowei Huang, Yali Zhao

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

OPTION⁵ is a scale used to evaluate shared decision making (SDM) in health care from an observer’s perspective; however, to date, there is no simplified Chinese version of this scale.

Objectives

This study aims to produce a simplified Chinese version of the OPTION⁵ scale and to test its psychometric properties.

Methods

One rater observed and audio-recorded consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and chronically ill patients in a Beijing community health service center (CHSC) from May to June 2019. Meanwhile, demographic data of the patients and GPs were collected via information forms. Two raters assessed inter- and intra-rater reliability by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted Cohen’s Kappa values. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α value. Concurrent was calculated by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 209 consultations were recorded and evaluated. As concerns inter-rater reliability, the ICC of the OPTION⁵ was 0.859 on the total score level, with Cohen’s weighted k ranging from 0.376 (item 5) to 0.649 (item 2) on the single item level. With regard to intra-rater reliability, the ICC was 0.945 on the total score level, with Cohen’s weighted k ranging from 0.469 (item 5) to 0.883 (item1) on the single item level. Cronbach’s α value of all 5 items amounted to 0.746. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between OPTION⁵ and OPTION¹² for Chinese versions was 0.660.

Conclusions

The simplified Chinese version of the OPTION⁵ scale, developed using stringent translation procedures, demonstrated satisfactory psychometric characteristics. Specifically, inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were excellent, while criterion validity was moderate. The simplified Chinese version of the OPTION⁵ scale can be implemented in clinical settings to evaluate SDM of treatment during consultations between GPs and chronically ill patients.

Available only for authorised users

Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219–26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000126073.

Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010.CrossRefPubMed

Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.CrossRefPubMed

Altin SV, Stock S. The impact of health literacy, patient-centered communication and shared decision-making on patients' satisfaction with care received in German primary care practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1693-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Blaiss MS, Steven GC, Bender B, Bukstein DA, Meltzer EO, Winders T. Shared decision making for the allergist. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;122(5):463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2018.08.019.CrossRefPubMed

Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004.CrossRefPubMed

Pollard S, Bansback N, Bryan S. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(9):1046–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.004.CrossRefPubMed

Zeng J, Jin L, Sun Y, Pan L, Li Y, Shi B. Review of assessment instruments for shared decision-making between doctors and patients [in Chinese]. Medicine & Philosophy(A). 2018;39(10):10–3.

Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Gärtner FR, Bomhof-Roordink H, Smith IP, Scholl I, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191747 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191747.CrossRef

11.

Nicolai J, Moshagen M, Eich W, Bieber C. The OPTION scale for the assessment of shared decision making (SDM): methodological issues. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):264–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2012.03.002.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Elwyn G, Tsulukidze M, Edwards A, Légaré F, Newcombe R. Using a 'talk' model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: observer OPTION 5 item. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(2):265–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.005.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of observer OPTION (5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(8):970–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kölker M, Topp J, Elwyn G, Härter M, Scholl I. Psychometric properties of the German version of observer OPTION5. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2891-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Stubenrouch FE, Pieterse AH, Falkenberg R, Santema TK, Stiggelbout AM, van der Weijden T, Aarts JA, Ubbink DT. OPTION (5) versus OPTION (12) instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(6):1062–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.019.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, Vaillancourt H, Leblanc A, Turcotte S, Elwyn G, Légaré F. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expect. 2015;18(4):542–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12054.

17.

Huang R, Song X, Wu J, Huang W, Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Liu Y, Boehmer KR, Ting HH, Montori VM. Assessing the feasibility and quality of shared decision making in China: evaluating a clinical encounter intervention for Chinese patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:234–2350. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S115115.CrossRef

18.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.CrossRef

19.

Tang W, Hu J, Zhang H, Wu P, He H. Kappa coefficient: a popular measure of rater agreement [in Chinese]. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2015;27(1):62–7. https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.215010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRef

21.

Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.CrossRef

22.

Bai X, Ge C, Zhao Y. The analysis of consultation time of outpatients in a community health service center in Beijing [in Chinese]. Continuing Med Educ. 2019;33(10):165–7.

23.

Zhao Y, Zhao X, Liu Y, Wei Y, Jin G, Shao S, Lu X. Perceptions, behaviours, barriers and needs of evidence-based medicine in primary care in Beijing: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-019-1062-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Goss C, Fontanesi S, Mazzi MA, Del Piccolo L, Rimondini M, Elwyn G, Zimmermann C. Shared decision making: the reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(3):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.002.

26.

Roter DL, Hall JA, Aoki Y. Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA. 2002;288(6):756–64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.6.756.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Del Piccolo L, Saltini A, Zimmermann C. Which patients talk about stressful life events and social problems to the general practitioner? Psychol Med. 1998;28(6):1289–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291798007478.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (5th edition). Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40(3):294–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12484.CrossRef

Title: Psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the observer OPTION5 scale
Authors: Zhaojuan Chen
Xuefei Bai
Guanghui Jin
Xin Tao
Guowei Huang
Yali Zhao
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01335-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the observer OPTION⁵ scale

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

The effect of family doctor policy practice on primary health-care workers’ health in Hongkou District of Shanghai, China: varied by occupational divisions?

Response to “understanding the behavioural determinants of opioid prescribing among family physicians: a qualitative study”

Digital consultations in Swedish primary health care: a qualitative study of physicians’ job control, demand and support

Analysis on professional identity and related factors among Chinese general practitioners: a National Cross-sectional Study

Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review

Accuracy of telephone triage in patients suspected of transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a cross-sectional study