Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T19:32:46.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

To what extent do general practitioners involve patients in decision-making? A systematic review of studies using the OPTION-instrument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2025

Dirk T. Ubbink*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Fadi Shamoun
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Steyn Heuvelsland
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Faridi S. van Etten-Jamaludin
Affiliation:
Research Support Medical Library, Amsterdam University Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Eva E. Bolt
Affiliation:
Department of General Practice, Amsterdam University Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Dirk T. Ubbink; Email: d.ubbink@amsterdamumc.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

This systematic review aimed to analyze studies assessing the extent to which General Practitioners (GPs) engage patients in the decision-making process during consultations.

Background:

Shared Decision Making (SDM) stands at the core of patient-centred care, particularly in primary healthcare, where a diverse array of medical decisions transpires. In a 2015 systematic review summarizing studies on the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) instrument to assess SDM objectively across healthcare settings, a notable dearth of patient involvement was observed.

Methods:

A comprehensive literature search encompassing three digital databases was conducted up to November 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies employing a comparative study design, centric to primary healthcare, and utilizing the OPTION-5 or -12 instrument to gauge SDM levels. Two investigators independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction using a list of predefined variables, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. PROSPERO registration-ID: CRD42023475419.

Findings:

Initially, harvesting 447 articles, our review retained 29 studies published between 2003 and 2022. Mean age of GPs was 45.5 (range 33–53) years. Reported baseline OPTION scores varied between 1.5 and 57.2 on a 0–100-point scale, with a median score of 16. Following SDM interventions, OPTION-scores increased significantly to a median of 28.5, range 16–83.

Conclusion:

The overall level of SDM among GPs remains relatively low and has shown minimal improvement over the past decade. However, interventions promoting SDM appear to enhance patient involvement levels. This underscores the necessity for increased education and tools, directed at GPs and patients, to foster and elevate the practice of SDM.

Information

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Several decades ago, shared decision-making (SDM) emerged as a pivotal principle to enhance patient participation in medical decision-making (Charles et al., Reference Charles, Gafni and Whelan1997; Brody, Reference Brody1980). In contemporary healthcare, this method of care stands as the cornerstone of patient-centred care (Stiggelbout et al., Reference Stiggelbout, Pieterse and De Haes2015; Menear et al., Reference Menear, Garvelink, Adekpedjou, Perez, Robitaille, Turcotte and Légaré2018) where patients and healthcare providers collaboratively weigh the pros and cons of treatment options, leveraging the best available evidence to reach decisions aligning with the patient’s preferences and circumstances (Elwyn et al. Reference Elwyn, Frosch, Thomson, Joseph-Williams, Lloyd, Kinnersley, Cording, Tomson, Dodd, Rollnick, Edwards and Barry2012; Chambers, Reference Chambers2023). SDM, particularly when complemented by decision aids, yields numerous patient benefits, including heightened satisfaction with the decision-making process, improved knowledge about disease and treatment options, more accurate risk perception, and more fitting treatment choices, all without adverse impacts on health outcomes (Stacey et al., Reference Stacey, Lewis, Smith, Carley, Volk, Douglas, Pacheco-Brousseau, Finderup, Gunderson, Barry, Bennett, Bravo, Steffensen, Gogovor, Graham, Kelly, Légaré, Sondergaard, Thomson, Trenaman and Trevena2024, Bruch et al., Reference Bruch, Khazen, Mahmic-Kaknjo, Légaré and Ellen2024).

Despite the supportive evidence for SDM, a 2015 review showed that the level of actually observed patient involvement remains seemingly low (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015), as indicated by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) instrument. This tool, developed in 2001, exists in 12-item and revised 5-item versions. It is widely utilized as one of the best means to assess patient involvement objectively. Independent observers employ this tool, analyzing audio or video recordings or transcripts of consultations (Barr et al., Reference Barr, O’Malley, Tsulukidze, Gionfriddo, Montori and Elwyn2015; Elwyn et al., Reference Elwyn, Hutchings, Edwards, Rapport, Wensing, Cheung and Grol2005).

Primary care emerges as an apparent domain for SDM implementation (Elwyn et al., Reference Elwyn, Edwards and Kinnersley1999), given the extensive service utilization, diverse health concerns, multitude of daily medical decisions encountered, and the frequent availability of more than one treatment options in this setting (Van der Horst et al., Reference Van der Horst, Garvelink, Bos, Stiggelbout and Pieterse2023). In the Netherlands, for example, the Federacy of Patient Organisations (PFN) and the Dutch Society of General Physicians (NHG) have been promoting SDM among GPs through a national campaign and e-learnings. However, patient engagement in decision-making within general practitioners’ (GPs) offices appears to be no better than when observed in outpatient clinical settings (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015).

With the escalating prominence of SDM in recent years (Van der Weijden et al., Reference Van der Weijden, van der Kraan, Brand, Van Veenendaal, Drenthen, Schoon, Tuyn, van der Weele, Stalmeier, Damman and Stiggelbout2022; Agoritsas et al., Reference Agoritsas, Heen, Brandt, Alonso-Coello, Kristiansen, Akl, Neumann, Tikkinen, Weijden, Elwyn, Montori, Guyatt and Vandvik2015), it is plausible that additional evidence concerning SDM application, particularly among GPs, has surfaced since the previous 2015 review. These studies potentially demonstrate increased levels of SDM.

Consequently, we systematically reviewed current literature assessing the extent to which GPs engage patients in the decision-making process during GP encounters, employing the OPTION instrument to measure this involvement. Moreover, we studied factors potentially influencing the level of SDM. As SDM is currently acknowledged as an essential principle in modern, high-quality medicine, the results of this review may help GPs to better involve their patients in the decision-making process and stimulate the implementation of SDM in primary healthcare.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow, Shamseer, Tetzlaff, Akl, Brennan, Chou, Glanville, Grimshaw, Hróbjartsson, Lalu, Li, Loder, Mayo-Wilson, McDonald, McGuinness, Stewart, Thomas, Tricco, Welch, Whiting and Moher2021), and was registered in the PROSPERO database under the identification CRD42023475419.

Search strategy and study selection

A clinical librarian (FvE) helped with conducting the literature search, targeting MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from 2014 to September 2023. Studies predating 2014 and meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria were sourced from a previous systematic review (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015). Key search terms employed included ‘Shared decision-making’, ‘OPTION-5’, ‘OPTION-12’, and ‘Patient involvement’. Table S1 shows the comprehensive outline of the search strategy. Additionally, the reference lists of pertinent studies underwent scrutiny for relevance. To make sure no relevant studies were overlooked, we also exchanged the harvest of our study search with the colleagues from Spain and the Netherlands who were conducting a general update (PROSPERO CRD42022332231) of the Couët review (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015).

Two reviewers (SH, FS) independently evaluated study eligibility. Any disparities in assessment were resolved through discussion or, when necessary, consultation with a third reviewer (DU).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were screened for eligibility and included if they utilized observational or experimental study designs employing the OPTION-5 or OPTION-12 instruments to gauge patient involvement objectively in the decision-making process. The study population was restricted to patients receiving care from general or primary care practitioners. Studies utilizing simulated patients or consultations were excluded from this review, as well as those including different healthcare providers and studies in which the data of general practitioners were not reported separately. Additionally, grey literature, abstracts, study protocols, and articles lacking original data were excluded from consideration.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality (risk of bias) within the included studies was evaluated based on checklists appropriate for the study designs as reported by the authors. These checklists were obtained from the Cochrane collaboration website (Cochrane, 2024). One reviewer completed these checklists, and a second reviewer independently verified the data entry.

Data extraction

Study data extraction involved a predefined list of variables, encompassing a) Study characteristics (author, publication year, study design, number of patients included); b) Consultation duration; c) Physician attributes (age, experience duration, prior SDM-education); d) Patient demographics (age, gender, diagnosed disorder); and e) OPTION-score outcomes, both at baseline and following any interventions. One reviewer performed the data extraction, crosschecked by another reviewer. Again, any discrepancies were resolved through discussion involving a third reviewer.

Data analysis

Analysis of the study characteristics and outcomes was presented as means with standard deviations (SD), medians with interquartile ranges when suitable, or ranges. The OPTION-scores, encompassing both the 12- and 5-item versions, were represented as percentages of the maximum achievable score. Differences between pre- and post-measurements were conveyed as means or medians with ranges or 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Multivariable linear regression analysis using the backward elimination method was employed to examine the impact of year of publication, type of OPTION-instrument used, consultation duration, and patients’ or physicians’ age on the observed OPTION-scores.

Meta-analysis was planned for the primary outcome (OPTION-score) provided acceptable study and statistical heterogeneity. A random effects model to compensate for inter-study variation was used if I2 was >50%.

Results

Identified studies

The search strategy yielded 447 articles. After exclusion of duplicates, 310 publications remained. By reviewing the titles, abstracts, and full texts, 29 papers were included for analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the selection process.

Study characteristics

Characteristics of the 29 included studies are shown in Table 1. Studies were published between 2003 and 2022. Seventeen were conducted in Europe, six in the USA, two in Australia, two in Canada, and two in Asia. In these 29 studies, GPs mostly discussed treatment options (medication, lifestyle, coaching, psychotherapy) for various conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, respiratory infections, osteoporosis, obesity, depression, cardiovascular or oncological disorders, as well as screening for lung cancer or Down syndrome. Some studies focused on a single diagnosis, while others included all patients visiting a GP. Consultations were first or routine check-ups at their office, home visits, or specifically to discuss treatment options.

Table 1. Study characteristics

Comp = comparing OPTION-scores between different groups.

Obs = one-time assessment of OPTION-score.

n.r. = not reported.

Twenty-three studies were categorized as having an observational design, as these scored the observed level of patient involvement only once in a single patient group. Six studies were deemed comparative, either before and after the introduction of an SDM-training or communication aid for physicians, or a decision aid for patients. In one study, consultations via telephone were compared with face-to-face consultations (McKinstry et al., Reference McKinstry, Hammersley, Burton, Pinnock, Elton, Dowell, Sawdon, Heaney, Elwyn and Sheikh2010). In three studies, the OPTION-12 or the OPTION-5 instrument was tested after translation into the native language (Goss et al., Reference Goss, Fontanesi, Mazzi, Del Piccolo, Rimondini, Elwyn and Zimmermann2007; Hirsch et al., Reference Hirsch, Keller, Müller-Engelmann, Gutenbrunner, Krones and Donner-Banzhoff2012; Kölker et al., Reference Kölker, Topp, Elwyn, Härter and Scholl2018). In these studies, as well as the in study by Edwards et al. (Edwards and Elwyn, Reference Edwards and Elwyn2006), the GPs had received some SDM-training before.

It should be noted that in some cases our classification of the study design differed from the design as reported by the study authors; i.e. the study by Den Ouden et al. (Den Ouden et al., Reference Den Ouden, Vos, Pieterse and Rutten2022) (cluster-RCT testing a decision aid for patients with type-2 diabetes but scoring OPTION-5 only once), Bakhit et al. (Bakhit et al., Reference Bakhit, Del Mar, Gibson and Hoffmann2018) (observational study whether SDM occurs in consultations for acute respiratory infections, nested within a cluster-RCT of decision aids), and Meijers et al. (Meijers et al., Reference Meijers, Noordman, Spreeuwenberg, Olde Hartman and Van Dulmen2019) (‘observational’ study but comparing OPTION-scores between 2007 and 2015). In the study by Siriwardena et al. (Siriwardena et al., Reference Siriwardena, Edwards, Campion, Freeman and Elwyn2006) the OPTION-scores were rated during a consulting skills examination and compared between those who failed or passed the exam, but no SDM-intervention was done. Hence, it was categorized as an observational study.

Audio-recordings with or without transcriptions were used in 20 studies, one study used notes of observations, another observed the live consultations, and the remaining seven studies used video-recordings to rate the level of SDM in the consultations. Out of these 20, 7 used the OPTION-5 instrument to rate the level of SDM.

Participant characteristics

The number of patients (i.e., consultations) recruited in each study ranged from 14 to 352, with a mean age varying between 29 and 71 years. Overall, slightly more (60.3%) females were involved. One study focused on children, with a mean age of 7.0 years (Dicé et al., Reference Dicé, Dolce and Freda2016).

The number of general physicians who were rated in the studies ranged from 8 to 114, with a mean age varying from 32.9 to 52.7 years, while their mean years of experience ranged from 3.0 to 19.1 years.

Risk of bias assessment

Table 2 shows the risk of bias assessment of the included comparative studies. Overall, study quality was moderate to good. Obviously, blinding of patients and physicians was hardly possible due to the type of intervention, as physicians knew whether they had utilized an SDM-training or a communication aid, and patients were aware of having used a decision aid.

Table 2. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies

1: Randomization.

2: Allocation concealment.

3: Blinding of patients and physicians.

4: Binding of observers.

5: Baseline comparability.

6: Complete follow-up.

7: Intention to teat analysis.

8: Similar treatments apart from intervention.

9: Reporting bias ruled out.

10: Academic bias ruled out.

For the single-measurement observational studies, risk of bias is summarized in Table 3. In general, the observational studies carried a low risk of bias.

Table 3. Risk of bias in the included observational studies

1: Adequate definition of study group.

2: Valid patient selection.

3: Blinded scoring of outcomes.

4: Follow-up duration sufficient.

5: Misclassification ruled out.

6: Corrected for confounding factors.

OPTION-scores

OPTION-scores were usually assessed by two raters independently, but inter-rater agreement by calculating a kappa-value was infrequently reported. Final scores from the two raters were determined by consensus or averaged. The scores and differences between groups were reported differently; either by means per group with or without standard deviations, or by mean differences with a 95%CI or a p-value.

Reported OPTION-scores, on a 0-100 scale, are shown in Table 4. In the 21 studies with untrained participants, reported baseline OPTION-scores ranged from 1.5 to 57.2 on a 0– 100-point scale, with a median of 16.0% (mean 17.6%). In all but one of these studies.

Table 4. OPTION-scores in observational and comparative studies

SD: standard deviation; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

* significantly higher OPTION-score than in control group.

OPTION-scores were below 30% (see Figure 2). In the four studies among GPs with some previous SDM-training, (Goss et al., Reference Goss, Fontanesi, Mazzi, Del Piccolo, Rimondini, Elwyn and Zimmermann2007; Hirsch et al., Reference Hirsch, Keller, Müller-Engelmann, Gutenbrunner, Krones and Donner-Banzhoff2012; Kölker et al., Reference Kölker, Topp, Elwyn, Härter and Scholl2018; Edwards and Elwyn Reference Edwards and Elwyn2006), baseline OPTION-scores were not significantly higher (median 26.4%, mean 31.8%). However, in the Edwards study, SDM-training for GPs led to a quite high mean OPTION-score of 62.8%, based on 17 purposively selected consultations.

Figure 2. Reported baseline OPTION-scores over time.

In nine studies with a before-after comparison (Table 1), median OPTION-scores increased from 23.7% (mean 22.6%; range 14.1%–32.1%) to 35.4% (mean 33.5%; range 19.0%–49.3%) after any SDM-intervention. Seven of these studies reported a significant increase in OPTION-scores (Bakhit et al., Reference Bakhit, Del Mar, Gibson and Hoffmann2018; Hirsch et al., Reference Hirsch, Keller, Müller-Engelmann, Gutenbrunner, Krones and Donner-Banzhoff2012; Kunneman et al., Reference Kunneman, Branda, Ridgeway, Tiedje, May, Linzer, Inselman, Buffington, Coffey, Boehm, Deming, Dick, Van Houten, LeBlanc, Liesinger, Lima, Nordeen, Pencille, Poplau, Reed, Vannelli, Yost, Ziegenfuss, Smith, Montori and Shah2022; Meijers et al., Reference Meijers, Noordman, Spreeuwenberg, Olde Hartman and Van Dulmen2019; Montori et al., Reference Montori, Shah, Pencille, Branda, Van Houten, Swiglo, Kesman, Tulledge-Scheitel, Jaeger, Johnson, Bartel, Melton and Wermers2011; Sanders et al., Reference Sanders, Bensing, Essed, Magnée, de Wit and Verhaak2017; Siriwardena et al., Reference Siriwardena, Edwards, Campion, Freeman and Elwyn2006). Another study, reporting only a 26.9% increase in OPTION-score after SDM-training, also showed a significant improvement (Elwyn et al., Reference Elwyn, Edwards, Hood, Robling, Atwell, Russell, Wensing and Grol2004).

Meta-analysis of the seven studies that reported OPTION-scores before and after an SDM-intervention is shown in Figure 3. When pooled, a significant increase was seen in OPTION-scores after a SDM-intervention: Mean difference was 11.72%, 95%CI 7.48–15.96, albeit with a large heterogeneity. Removing the studies with higher risk of bias (Bakhit et al., Reference Bakhit, Del Mar, Gibson and Hoffmann2018; McKinstry et al., Reference McKinstry, Hammersley, Burton, Pinnock, Elton, Dowell, Sawdon, Heaney, Elwyn and Sheikh2010) did not change the outcome substantially.

Figure 3. Forest plot of OPTION-scores.

Consultation duration

Based on the 22 studies reporting on consultation duration, mean duration was 13 mins. (median 10.68, range 4.6–29.4 mins.). Six studies reported consultation durations before and after a SDM-intervention. Before the intervention, mean duration was 15.6 mins. (median 11.25 mins.), which did not differ significantly from the duration after intervention (mean 17.51, median 14.10 mins.)

Regression analysis

Neither univariable nor multivariable analyses yielded factors significantly influencing the OPTION-scores. In particular, the consultation duration and the year of publication did not influence the OPTION-scores (see Figure 2). Included studies published before 2012 had a mean baseline OPTION-score of 21.7% (SD 15.4) vs. 18.7% (SD 14.4) in those published 2013 or later, i.e. after the previous review by Couët et al. (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015).

Discussion

The current evidence from 29 studies included in this systematic review of the literature on the level of SDM in primary care shows that there is still a low level of SDM among general practitioners. This level significantly improved after the introduction of SDM-supporting interventions, such as patient decision aids, question prompts and SDM-education, but still leaves room for improvement. Over time, since the first study published in 2003, the observed level of SDM appears to remain unchanged. The OPTION-instrument is a common and useful way of capturing SDM-behaviour and changes in SDM-skills over time.

In primary care settings, a higher level of patient involvement might be expected. Patients who see their GPs regularly may have developed a higher level of confidence, while GPs may easier invite their patients to share their ideas, concerns and preferences. On the other hand, the presented complaints and illnesses are usually different from those in an outpatient clinical setting. Issues at stake may have a smaller impact on physical health, in contrast with encounters with medical specialists, in which decision-making may be more focused on comparing treatment options.

The stagnating SDM-levels among GPs may be due to still insufficient perceptions of the SDM-model (Torres-Castaño et al., Reference Torres-Castaño, Perestelo-Pérez, Koatz, Ramos-García, González-González, Toledo-Chávarri, Bermejo-Caja, Gonzalez-Pacheco, Abt-Sack, Pacheco-Huergo and Orrego2024). The SDM-skills did not improve over time, but this may (at least in part) be explained by the fact that the studies were conducted among untrained GPs. However, even studies among GPs with some SDM-expertise (Goss et al., Reference Goss, Fontanesi, Mazzi, Del Piccolo, Rimondini, Elwyn and Zimmermann2007; Hirsch et al., Reference Hirsch, Keller, Müller-Engelmann, Gutenbrunner, Krones and Donner-Banzhoff2012; Kölker et al., Reference Kölker, Topp, Elwyn, Härter and Scholl2018; Edwards and Elwyn Reference Edwards and Elwyn2006) did not show significantly higher OPTION-scores. Also, the long-term effects of these SDM-interventions were not investigated and may have been short-lived. Hence, a combination of undergraduate and post-graduate SDM-education and continual SDM-training are likely to yield a more permanent effect (Col et al., Reference Col, Bozzuto, Kirkegaard, Koelewijn-van Loon, Majeed, Jen Ng and Pacheco-Huergo2011; Légaré et al., Reference Légaré, Bekker, Desroches, Drolet, Politi, Stacey, Borduas, Cheater, Cornuz, Coutu, Ferdjaoui-Moumjid, Griffiths, Härter, Jacques, Krones, Labrecque, Neely, Rodriguez, Sargeant, Schuerman and Sullivan2011; Nyamapfene and Merchant, Reference Nyamapfene and Merchant2023; Elwyn et al., Reference Elwyn, Edwards, Wensing, Hood, Atwell and Grol2003). Simultaneously, patients need to be informed and educated to better participate in this decision-making process (Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, Radionova, Rieger and Siegel2019; Légaré et al., Reference Légaré, Turcotte, Stacey, Ratté, Kryworuchko and Graham2012). However, the best way to implement SDM among healthcare professionals in general is still unclear (Légaré et al., Reference Légaré, Adekpedjou, Stacey, Turcotte, Kryworuchko, Graham, Lyddiatt, Politi, Thomson, Elwyn and Donner-Banzhoff2018). Further research should focus on implementation initiatives and ways to sustain the effect of the interventions.

No effects were seen of the consultation duration on the observed SDM-levels. This agrees with a previous review (Van Veenendaal et al., Reference Van Veenendaal, Chernova, Bouman, van Etten-Jamaludin, Van Dieren and Ubbink2023), which showed that more SDM does not necessarily lead to a longer duration. The patients’ age also did not seem to influence the observed SDM-levels. This is in contrast with current ideas (Schneider et al., Reference Schneider, Körner, Mehring, Wensing, Elwyn and Szecsenyi2006). As the studies included in the present review contained mostly middle-aged or elderly participants, our regression analysis may not have been sensitive to a possible association with age.

Strengths & limitations

This review included and analyzed 29 studies in the primary healthcare setting, which is a substantially higher number than in the previous 2015 review by Couët et al. (Couët et al., Reference Couët, Desroches, Robitaille, Vaillancourt, Leblanc, Turcotte, Elwyn and Légaré2015), in which 12 out of the included 33 studies addressed primary care. The risk of bias of the included studies was moderate to good.

Limitations of this review include the fact that OPTION-score ratings are operator-dependent, and the interpretation of the items may need calibration for each patient populations. Usually, more than one rater scored the consultations, but only in some studies their inter-rater agreement was assessed. Hence, rating skills and interpretations may have differed across the included studies. Also, two versions of the OPTION-instrument were applied: one version measuring the magnitude (OPTION-5) of the patient involvement by the clinician, and the other the attitude towards patient involvement (OPTION-12). This may have led to diverging outcomes, although the two versions were found to correlate well (Stubenrouch et al., Reference Stubenrouch, Pieterse, Falkenberg, Santema, Stiggelbout, Van der Weijden, Aarts and Ubbink2016). Despite these possible causes for uncertainty, the impact on our conclusion seems limited as OPTION-scores were generally low across all included studies, irrespective of the type of OPTION-instrument used or patient population studied.

Conclusion

SDM is considered as an ethical obligation in modern healthcare and seems desirable and feasible in primary healthcare. However, current evidence shows the level of SDM in consultations between patients and their GPs still leaves room for improvement. This improvement is feasible indeed, as SDM-levels were shown to improve significantly with interventions such as decision aids, pre-scripted patient questions, and SDM-trainings. Long-term effects are still unknown and need further research.

This systematic review on the level of SDM in primary care can hopefully contribute to help GPs to better involve their patients in the decision-making process. The evidence from this review can also be seminal for policymakers to stimulate the implementation of SDM in this specific medical realm.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423625100303

Author contributions

D.T.U.: Conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and data interpretation, drafting, and critical revision. F.S.: data acquisition, interpretation and critical revision. S.H.: data acquisition, interpretation and critical revision: F.S.E-J: literature searches. E.E.B.: Data interpretation, critical revision.

Funding statement

This study received no funding.

Competing interests

All authors state they have no financial, consultant, institutional or other relationships conflicts that could lead to a conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

As this systematic review did not involve human or animal subjects, no ethics review or informed consent was relevant.

References

Agoritsas, T, Heen, AF, Brandt, L, Alonso-Coello, P, Kristiansen, A, Akl, EA, Neumann, I, Tikkinen, KA, Weijden, Tv, Elwyn, G, Montori, VM, Guyatt, GH and Vandvik, PO (2015) Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. The BMJ 350, g7624.10.1136/bmj.g7624CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakhit, M, Del Mar, C, Gibson, E and Hoffmann, T (2018) Shared decision making and antibiotic benefit-harm conversations: an observational study of consultations between general practitioners and patients with acute respiratory infections. BMC Family Practice 19(1), 165.10.1186/s12875-018-0854-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, PJ, O’Malley, AJ, Tsulukidze, M, Gionfriddo, MR, Montori, V and Elwyn, G (2015) The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling 98(8), 970976.10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenner, AT, Malo, TL, Margolis, M, Elston Lafata, J, James, S, Vu, MB and Reuland, DS (2018) Evaluating shared decision making for lung cancer screening. JAMA Internal Medicine 178(10), 13111316.10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brody, DS (1980) The patient’s role in clinical decision-making. Annals of Internal Medicine 93(5), 718722.10.7326/0003-4819-93-5-718CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruch, JD, Khazen, M, Mahmic-Kaknjo, M, Légaré, F and Ellen, ME (2024) The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review. Patient Education and Counseling 129, 108408.10.1016/j.pec.2024.108408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, DW (2023) Toward an operational definition of shared decision making: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 29(7), 10611067. doi: 10.1111/jep.13773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charles, C, Gafni, A and Whelan, T (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44(5), 681692.10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z, Bai, X, Jin, G, Tao, X, Huang, G and Zhao, Y (2020) Psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the observer OPTION5 scale. BMC Family Practice 21(1), 113.10.1186/s12875-020-01335-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane Checklists (2024) [online] Available at: https://netherlands.cochrane.org/beoordelen-van-studiekwaliteit-en-richtlijnen-voor-rapportage [Last accessed July 28, 2024].Google Scholar
Col, N, Bozzuto, L, Kirkegaard, P, Koelewijn-van Loon, M, Majeed, H, Jen Ng, C and Pacheco-Huergo, V (2011) Interprofessional education about shared decision making for patients in primary care settings. Journal of Interprofessional Care 25(6), 409415.10.3109/13561820.2011.619071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couët, N, Desroches, S, Robitaille, H, Vaillancourt, H, Leblanc, A, Turcotte, S Elwyn, G and Légaré, F (2015) Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expectations 18(4), 542561.10.1111/hex.12054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Den Ouden, H, Vos, RC, Pieterse, AH and Rutten, GEHM (2022) Shared decision making in primary care: process evaluation of the intervention in the OPTIMAL study, a cluster randomised trial. Primary Care Diabetes 16(3), 375380.10.1016/j.pcd.2022.02.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dicé, F, Dolce, P and Freda, MF (2016) Exploring emotions and the shared decision-making process in pediatric primary care. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology 4(3), 132.Google Scholar
Dillon, EC, Stults, CD, Wilson, C, Chuang, J, Meehan, A, Li, M, Elwyn, G, Frosch, DL, Yu, E and Tai-Seale, M (2017) An evaluation of two interventions to enhance patient-physician communication using the observer OPTION5 measure of shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling 100(10), 19101917.10.1016/j.pec.2017.04.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A and Elwyn, G (2006) Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy 9(4), 307320.10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00401.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Edwards, A, Hood, K, Robling, M, Atwell, C, Russell, I, Wensing, M and Grol, R (2004) Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Family Practice 21(4), 337346.10.1093/fampra/cmh401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Edwards, A and Kinnersley, P (1999) Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. The British Journal of General Practice 49(443), 477482.Google ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Edwards, A, Wensing, M, Hood, K, Atwell, C and Grol, R (2003) Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality & Safety in Health Care 12(2), 9399.10.1136/qhc.12.2.93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Frosch, D, Thomson, R, Joseph-Williams, N, Lloyd, A, Kinnersley, P, Cording, E, Tomson, D, Dodd, C, Rollnick, S, Edwards, A and Barry, M (2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27(10), 1361367.10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwyn, G, Hutchings, H, Edwards, A, Rapport, F, Wensing, M, Cheung, YW and Grol, R (2005) The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy 8(1), 3442.10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagnon, S, Labrecque, M, Njoya, M, Rousseau, F, St-Jacques, S and Légaré, F (2010) How much do family physicians involve pregnant women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome? Prenatal Diagnosis 30(2), 115121.10.1002/pd.2421CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goss, C, Fontanesi, S, Mazzi, MA, Del Piccolo, L, Rimondini, M, Elwyn, G and Zimmermann, C (2007) Shared decision making: the reliability of the OPTION scale in Italy. Patient Education and Counseling 66(3), 296302.10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, O, Keller, H, Müller-Engelmann, M, Gutenbrunner, MH, Krones, T and Donner-Banzhoff, N (2012) Reliability and validity of the German version of the OPTION scale. Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy 15(4), 379388.10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00689.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, JL, Storch, D, Jackson, W, Becher, D and O’Malley, PG (2020) Direct-observation cohort study of shared decision making in a primary care clinic. Medical Decisison Making 40(6), 756765.10.1177/0272989X20936272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölker, M, Topp, J, Elwyn, G, Härter, M and Scholl, I (2018) Psychometric properties of the German version of Observer OPTION5. BMC Health Services Research 18(1).10.1186/s12913-018-2891-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunneman, M, Branda, ME, Ridgeway, JL, Tiedje, K, May, CR, Linzer, M, Inselman, J, Buffington, ALH, Coffey, J, Boehm, D, Deming, J, Dick, S, Van Houten, H, LeBlanc, A, Liesinger, J, Lima, J, Nordeen, J, Pencille, L, Poplau, S, Reed, S, Vannelli, A, Yost, KJ, Ziegenfuss, JY, Smith, SA, Montori, VM and Shah, ND (2022) Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention. Endocrine 75(2), 377391.10.1007/s12020-021-02861-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, YK, Chor, YY, Tan, MY, Ngio, YC, Chew, AW, Tiew, HW, Syahirah, MR and Ng, CJ (2020) Factors associated with level of shared decision making in Malaysian primary care consultations. Patient Education and Counseling 103(5), 10491051.10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Légaré, F, Adekpedjou, R, Stacey, D, Turcotte, S, Kryworuchko, J, Graham, ID, Lyddiatt, A, Politi, MC, Thomson, R, Elwyn, G and Donner-Banzhoff, N (2018) Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7(7), CD006732.Google ScholarPubMed
Légaré, F, Bekker, H, Desroches, S, Drolet, R, Politi, MC, Stacey, D, Borduas, F, Cheater, FM, Cornuz, J, Coutu, MF, Ferdjaoui-Moumjid, N, Griffiths, F, Härter, M, Jacques, A, Krones, T, Labrecque, M, Neely, C, Rodriguez, C, Sargeant, J, Schuerman, JS and Sullivan, MD (2011) How can continuing professional development better promote shared decision-making? Perspectives from an international collaboration. Implementation Science : IS 6, 68.10.1186/1748-5908-6-68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Légaré, F, Turcotte, S, Stacey, D, Ratté, S, Kryworuchko, J and Graham, ID (2012) Patients’ perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice. Patient 5(1), 119.10.2165/11592180-000000000-00000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Roux, E, Edwards, PJ, Sanderson, E, Barnes, RK and Ridd, MJ (2020) The content and conduct of GP consultations for dermatology problems: a cross-sectional study. The British Journal of General Practice 70(699), e723e730.10.3399/bjgp20X712577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loh, A, Simon, D, Hennig, K, Hennig, B, Härter, M and Elwyn, G (2006) The assessment of depressive patients’ involvement in decision making in audio-taped primary care consultations. Patient Education and Counseling 63(3), 314318.10.1016/j.pec.2006.04.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKinstry, B, Hammersley, V, Burton, C, Pinnock, H, Elton, R, Dowell, J, Sawdon, N, Heaney, D, Elwyn, G and Sheikh, A (2010) The quality, safety and content of telephone and face-to-face consultations: a comparative study. Quality & Safety in Health Care 19(4), 298303.10.1136/qshc.2008.027763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijers, MC, Noordman, J, Spreeuwenberg, P, Olde Hartman, TC and Van Dulmen, S (2019) Shared decision-making in general practice: an observational study comparing 2007 with 2015. Family Practice 36(3), 357364.10.1093/fampra/cmy096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menear, M, Garvelink, MM, Adekpedjou, R, Perez, MMB, Robitaille, H, Turcotte, S and Légaré, F (2018) Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study. Health Expectations 21(1), 212221.10.1111/hex.12603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misra, AJ, Ong, SY, Gokhale, A, Khan, S and Melnick, ER (2019) Opportunities for addressing gaps in primary care shared decision-making with technology: a mixed-methods needs assessment. JAMIA Open 2(4), 447455.10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montori, VM, Shah, ND, Pencille, LJ, Branda, ME, Van Houten, HK, Swiglo, BA, Kesman, RL, Tulledge-Scheitel, SM, Jaeger, TM, Johnson, RE, Bartel, GA, Melton, LJ 3rd and Wermers, RA (2011) Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. American Journal of Medicine 124(6), 549556.10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muscat, DM, Shepherd, HL, Hay, L, Shivarev, A, Patel, B, McKinn, S, Bonner, C, McCaffery, K and Jansen, J (2019) Discussions about evidence and preferences in real-life general practice consultations with older patients. Patient Education and Counseling 102(5), 879887.10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyamapfene, T and Merchant, H (2023) Shared decision-making training in general practice: a rapid review. Future Healthcare Journal 10(2), 147153.10.7861/fhj.2022-0120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, M, McKenzie, J, Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I, Hoffmann, T, Mulrow, C, Shamseer, L, Tetzlaff, JM, Akl, EA, Brennan, S.E., Chou, R, Glanville, J, Grimshaw, JM, Hróbjartsson, A, Lalu, MM, Li, T, Loder, EW, Mayo-Wilson, E, McDonald, S, McGuinness, LA, Stewart, LA, Thomas, J, Tricco, AC, Welch, VA, Whiting, P and Moher, D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ 372, n71.10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, AR, Bensing, JM, Essed, MA, Magnée, T, de Wit, NJ and Verhaak, PF (2017) Does training general practitioners result in more shared decision making during consultations? Patient Education and Counseling 100(3), 563574.10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, A, Körner, T, Mehring, M, Wensing, M, Elwyn, G and Szecsenyi, J (2006) Impact of age, health locus of control and psychological co-morbidity on patients’ preferences for shared decision making in general practice. Patient Education & Counseling 61(2), 292298.10.1016/j.pec.2005.04.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siriwardena, AN, Edwards, AG, Campion, P, Freeman, A and Elwyn, G (2006) Involve the patient and pass the MRCGP: investigating shared decision making in a consulting skills examination using a validated instrument. The British Journal of General Practice 56(532), 857862.Google Scholar
Sonntag, U, Wiesner, J, Fahrenkrog, S, Renneberg, B, Braun, V and Heintze, C (2012) Motivational interviewing and shared decision making in primary care. Patient Education & Counseling 87(1), 6266.10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stacey, D, Lewis, KB, Smith, M, Carley, M., Volk, R, Douglas, EE, Pacheco-Brousseau, L, Finderup, J, Gunderson, J, Barry, MJ, Bennett, CL, Bravo, P, Steffensen, K, Gogovor, A, Graham, ID, Kelly, SE, Légaré, F, Sondergaard, H, Thomson, R, Trenaman, L and Trevena, L (2024) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1(1), CD001431.Google ScholarPubMed
Stiggelbout, AM, Pieterse, A.H and De Haes, JC (2015) Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Education & Counseling 98(10), 11721179.10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stubenrouch, FE, Pieterse, AH, Falkenberg, R, Santema, TK, Stiggelbout, AM, Van der Weijden, T, Aarts, JA and Ubbink, DT (2016) OPTION(5) versus OPTION(12) instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making. Patient Education & Counseling 99(6), 10621068.10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres-Castaño, A, Perestelo-Pérez, L, Koatz, D, Ramos-García, V, González-González, AI, Toledo-Chávarri, A, Bermejo-Caja, CJ, Gonzalez-Pacheco, H, Abt-Sack, A, Pacheco-Huergo, V and Orrego, C (2024) Healthcare professionals’ perceptions about the implementation of shared decision-making in primary care: a qualitative study from a virtual community of practice. International Journal of Integrated Care 24(2), 8.10.5334/ijic.6554CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Horst, DEM, Garvelink, MM, Bos, WJW, Stiggelbout, AM and Pieterse, AH (2023) For which decisions is shared decision making considered appropriate? - A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling 106, 316.10.1016/j.pec.2022.09.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Weijden, T, van der Kraan, J, Brand, PLP, Van Veenendaal, H, Drenthen, T, Schoon, Y, Tuyn, E, van der Weele, G, Stalmeier, P, Damman, OC and Stiggelbout, A (2022) Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 171, 98104.10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Veenendaal, H, Chernova, G, Bouman, CM, van Etten-Jamaludin, FS, Van Dieren, S and Ubbink, DT (2023) Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling 107, 107561.10.1016/j.pec.2022.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, A, Radionova, N, Rieger, MA and Siegel, A (2019) Patient education and continuing medical education to promote shared decision-making. A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(14), 2482.10.3390/ijerph16142482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, MC and Peters, TJ (2008) Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and Informed Decision Making instruments. Patient Education and Counseling 70(1), 7986.10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the selection process.

Figure 1

Table 1. Study characteristics

Figure 2

Table 2. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies

Figure 3

Table 3. Risk of bias in the included observational studies

Figure 4

Table 4. OPTION-scores in observational and comparative studies

Figure 5

Figure 2. Reported baseline OPTION-scores over time.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Forest plot of OPTION-scores.