Elwyn, Glyn

Abstract Background We have no clear overview of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in the decision‐making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument ( OPTION ) was designed to assess this. Objective To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. Search strategy We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001–12) and gathered further data through networking. Inclusion criteria (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health‐care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Data extraction Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. Main results We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient‐involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making ( SDM ), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0–100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM ( n = 8/9) and duration of consultations ( n = 8/15). Conclusions Whatever the clinical context, few health‐care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.

This article provides an analysis of ‘decision aids’, interventions to support patients facing tough decisions. Interest has increased since the concept of shared decision making has become widely considered to be a means of achieving desirable clinical outcomes. We consider the aims of these interventions and examine assumptions about their use. We propose three categories, interventions that are used in face-to-face encounters, those designed for use outside clinical encounters and those which are mediated, using telephone or other communication media. We propose the following definition: decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options, by considering relevantattributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate and long-term outcomes which have relevant consequences, in ways which help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making, appropriate to their individual situation. Although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we are also cautious about premature closure and consider that the need for short versions for use inside clinical encounters and long versions for external use requires further research. More work is also needed on the use of narrative formats and the translation of theory into practical designs. The interest in decision support interventions for patients heralds a transformation in clinical practice although many important areas remain unresolved.