|
Résumé :
|
Objective The 12-item “observing patient involvement” (OPTION12)-instrument is commonly used to assess the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in health-related decision-making. The five-item version (OPTION5) claims to be a more efficient measure. In this study we compared the Dutch versions of the OPTION-instruments in terms of inter-rater agreement and correlation in outpatient doctor-patient consultations in various settings, to learn if we can safely switch to the shorter OPTION5-instrument. Methods Two raters coded 60 audiotaped vascular surgery and oncology patient consultations using OPTION12 and OPTION5. Unweighted Cohen’s kappa was used to compute inter-rater agreement on item-level. The association between the total scores of the two OPTION-instruments was investigated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and a Bland & Altman plot. Results After fine-tuning the OPTION-manuals, inter-rater agreement for OPTION12 and OPTION5 was good to excellent (kappa range 0.69–0.85 and 0.63–0.72, respectively). Mean total scores were 23.7 (OPTION12, SD = 7.8) and 39.3 (OPTION5, SD = 12.7). Correlation between the total scores was high (r = 0.71, p = 0.01). OPTION5 scored systematically higher with a wider range than OPTION12. Conclusion Both OPTION-instruments had a good inter-rater agreement and correlated well. OPTION5 seems to differentiate better between various levels of patient involvement.
|
