Table 3.

Comparison of mean OPTION scores between initial and follow-up consultations

Item	Shared decision-making behaviour [19]	Initial encounters mean score (min–max)	Follow-up encounters mean score (min–max)	Initial + follow-up mean score (min–max)
1	The clinician draws attention to an identified problem as one that requires a decision-making process	0.9 (0–3)	0.5 (0–2)	0.7 (0–3)
2	The clinician states that there is more than one way to deal with the identified problem	0.9 (0–2)	0.8 (0–3)	0.8 (0–3)
3	The clinician assesses patient’s preferred approach to receiving information to assist decision-making	0.6 (0–3)	0.6 (0–3)	0.6 (0–3)
4	The clinician lists ‘options’, which can include the choice of ‘no action’	1.3 (0–3)	1.2 (1–2)	1.4 (1–3)
5	The clinician explains the pros and cons of options to the patient	0.7 (0–3)	0.9 (0–3)	0.8 (0–3)
6	The clinician explores the patient’s expectations (or ideas) about how the problem(s) are to be managed	1.3 (0–4)	0.7 (0–4)	1.0 (0–4)
7	The clinician explores the patient’s concerns (fears) about how problem(s) are to be managed	0.2 (0–2)	0.3 (0–2)	0.3 (0–2)
8	The clinician checks that the patient has understood the information	1.1 (0–2)	1.5 (0–3)	1.3 (0–3)
9	The clinician offers the patient explicit opportunities to ask questions during decision-making process	1.1 (0–2)	1.2 (0–2)	1.2 (0–2)
10	The clinician elicits the patient’s preferred level of involvement in decision-making	0.4 (0–2)	1.0 (0–3)	0.7 (0–3)
11	The clinician indicates the need for a decision-making (or deferring) stage	1.1 (0–3)	1.3 (0–3)	1.2 (0–3)
12	The clinician indicates the need to review the decision (or deferment)	1.7 (0–3)	1.7 (0–4)	1.7 (0–4)
Mean OPTION scores		23.6 (10.4–43.8 %)	24.5 (10.4–43.8 %)	24.0 (10.4–43.8 %)