029 Assessment of shared decision-making levels with the option-5: a systematic review after 10 years of use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In 2013, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION-5) was developed to measure levels of shared decision-making (SDM) in consultations.1 Since then, it has been used in numerous studies. We aimed to synthesize these studies to systematically assess the level of SDM, as measured with the OPTION-5. Methods A systematic review of studies with OPTION-5 as an outcome. We included all studies that reported OPTION-5 scores, except for studies with simulated patients. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were searched from 2013 to September 2023. A data extraction form was developed and pilot tested, consisting of data on study, patient and provider characteristics and OPTION-5 scores. Descriptive statistics were used to provide an overview of the characteristics and the mean OPTION-5 score was calculated. (Preliminary) Results A total of 52 studies were included. The majority were published since 2020 (n=35, 68%) and originated from the Netherlands (n=19, 37%) or the United States (n=18, 35%). The most common conditions studied were multiple conditions (n=18, 35%) or a single oncological condition (n=11, 21%). The mean OPTION-5 score across all studies was 36/100 (range 5.5–83.0). Discussion This is the first systematic review to report this level as measured by OPTION-5. A previous review has assessed the level of SDM as measured by a different instrument (the OPTION-12, the predecessor to OPTION-5) and found a mean of 23/100.2 Hence, our results (36/100) suggest a positive trend in the level of SDM. Conclusion(s) These results provide a basis for further exploration of trends in SDM-levels and variations within different subgroups, contributing to a better understanding of OPTION-5 scores. We are currently conducting a meta-analysis to calculate the average score per subgroup and to investigate a threshold for clinically significant SDM. References 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 Nov;93(2):265–71. 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. 2013 Aug;18(4):542–61.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".