Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan 3;121:15–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.001

Table 1.

Comparison of shared decision-making instruments by measurement properties and integrative model elements

Instrument characteristics CollaboRATE [1113] COMRADE [14] DEEP-SDM [15] Individual care [16] Informed decision-making tool [17] MAPPIN’SDM [18,19] OPTION5 [2022] OPTION/OPTION revised [7,23,24] OPTION (dyadic) [25,26] OPTION12 [21,22,27] PACIC [28] PICS [29] SDM MASS [30] SDM-Q [31] SDM-Q-9 [11,3234] SDM Q-Doc [35]
Instrument perspective P P O P O C P O O O C P O P P C P O P P C
Number of items 3 20 - 37 9 11 5 18 12 12 20 25 15 15 9 9
Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) 0.9 0.96 0.87 0.79 0.68 0.9 0.68 0.94 0.73 0.87 0.77 0.94 0.91
Construct validity
Makoul’s integrative SDM model [8]
1.Essential SDM elements
 Define/explain problem
 Present options
 Discuss pros/cons
 Patient values/preferences
 Discuss patient ability/self-efficacy
 Doctor knowledge/recommendations
 Check/clarify understanding
 Make or explicitly defer decision
 Arrange follow-up
2. Ideal SDM elements
 Unbiased information
 Define roles
 Present evidence
 Mutual agreement
3. General SDM qualities
 Deliberation/negotiation
 Flexibility/individualized approach
 Information exchange
 Involves at least two people
 Middle ground
 Mutual respect
 Partnership
 Patient education
 Patient participation
 Process/stages
Total elements 9 18 18 8 18 15 22 22 20 21 12 20 15 22 22 22

Abbreviations: SDM, shared decision-making; C, clinician reported; P, patient reported; O, observer reported; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.

Reprinted with permission [8].