Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

The ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision making in clinical practice in the United Kingdom: a mixed-methods study.

Williams, Denitza ORCID:, Edwards, Adrian ORCID:, Wood, Fiona ORCID:, Lloyd, Amy ORCID:, Brain, Katherine ORCID:, Thomas, Nerys, Prichard, Alison, Goodland, Annwen, Sweetland, Helen, McGarrigle, Helen, Hill, Gwenllian and Joseph-Williams, Natalie ORCID: 2019. The ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision making in clinical practice in the United Kingdom: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 9 (8) , e029485. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029485

[thumbnail of e029485.full.pdf]
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (259kB) | Preview


Objectives: To examine how observer and self-report measures of shared decision-making (SDM) evaluate the decision-making activities that patients and clinicians undertake in routine consultations. Design: Multi-method study using observational and self-reported measures of SDM and qualitative analysis. Setting: Breast care and predialysis teams who had already implemented SDM. Participants: Breast care consultants, clinical nurse specialists and patients who were making decisions about treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Predialysis clinical nurse specialists and patients who needed to make dialysis treatment decisions. Methods Consultations were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SDM was measured using Observer OPTION-5 and a dyadic SureScore self-reported measure. Results: Twenty-two breast and 21 renal consultations were analysed. SureScore indicated that clinicians and patients felt SDM was occurring, but scores showed ceiling effects for most participants, making differentiation difficult. There was mismatch between SureScore and OPTION-5 score data, the latter showing that each consultation lacked at least some elements of SDM. Highest scoring items using OPTION-5 were ‘incorporating patient preferences into decisions’ for the breast team (mean 18.5, range 12.5–20, SD 2.39) and ‘eliciting patient preferences to options’ for the renal team (mean 16.15, range 10–20, SD 3.48). Thematic analysis identified that the SDM encounter is difficult to measure because decision-making is often distributed across encounters and time, with multiple people, it is contextually adapted and can involve multiple decisions. Conclusions: Self-reported measures can broadly indicate satisfaction with SDM, but do not tell us about the quality of the interaction and are unlikely to capture the multi-staged nature of the SDM process. Observational measures provide an indication of the extent to which elements of SDM are present in the observed consultation, but cannot explain why some elements might not be present or scored lower. Findings are important when considering measuring SDM in practice.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Centre for Trials Research (CNTRR)
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN: 2044-6055
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 25 July 2019
Date of Acceptance: 10 July 2019
Last Modified: 24 Mar 2024 15:03

Citation Data

Cited 16 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item


Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics