PROM Detail

  • Basic Information
  • Detailed Information
  • Domains
  • Psychometrics

Basic Information

Abbreviated name
Full name
Items ?
The number of questions in the survey
Short description
The dyadic version of the existing OPTION measure was developed so that a single tool could be used to assess the extent to which patients had engaged in shared decision making from two viewpoints (the patients and the health care practitioners). The developers believed it would be more advantageous to adapt an existing decision making tool, rather than develop a new one, because they could benefit from the rigorous testing that had already been applied to the original measure. Specifically, that it had the psychometric data to support its uni-dimensional nature (Cook & Kenny, 2005; LeBlanc, Kenny, OConnor & Legare, 2009).
PCCC or QoL? ?
This compendium contains patient-reported measures that are either designed to specifically measure aspects of Person Centred Co-Ordinated Care (P3C), or alternatively tools that are designed to measure some aspect of Quality of Life (QoL) or Health Related Quality of Life (hrQoL). All the measures in this compendium have been broadly categorised into one of those two concepts.
Person Centred Coordinated Care
Main Domains Measured ?
This is the key domains that the measure is targeting.
Shared decision-making
Type of measure ?
The measures in this compendium can take a variety of forms. Generally, they will be either Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) or Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM). However, we have also included a few measures that are completed by proxy-individual (PROXY), which are useful in instances where the respondent cannot answer directly (e.g. dementia or end of life). Sometimes, these measures can even be a composite of these types, and target both experiences and outcomes – we have labelled these measures “PROEMs”.
PREM (but can be used by health practitioners too)
Respondent ?
The person that fills in the questionnaire - e.g. patient, Health Care Professional, or proxy (normally a carer or family member)

Detailed Information

Year developed ?
The year in which the measure was first published.
Country developed in ?
The main country[s] in which the measure was first developed.
Original publication ?
The publication in which the measure was originally published.
Search Citations of Original Reference
Website link ?
A link to the developer of the measure, if they have a website.
Target condition ?
The measures can be either generic or disease specific (e.g. Diabetes, Heart Failure)
Main context tested in ?
The main context in which the measure has been developed and used (E.g. Hopital, General Practice etc).
Primary care
Main countries used in ?
The main countries in which the measure has been developed and used.
UK, US, Germany, The Netherlands, South America
Target age ?
e.g. Adults, Children, Elderly
Main uses of measure ?
The context in which the measure is most often used – e.g. clinical trials; national surveys.
Assess the extent to which patients have been involved in (shared) decision making from two viewpoints-that of the patient and the clinician.
Used in UK? ?
Whether the instrument has been tested and validated within a UK healthcare context.
Impact ?
A crude indication of the impact of the measure on academia. This is the number of times the original publication has been cited on PubMed, divided/normalised to the years since publication.
Official translations
Flesch-Kincaid readability tests ?
A rating that corresponds approximately to US school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. Generally, a score of 7 or 8 should be appropriate.


Domain description
Shared decision making
Shared decision making
Information sharing


Brief description ?
A brief description of the initially reported psychometric properties of the measure.
The developers report several issues that impeded the completion of the measure, but ultimately they conclude that the finished dyadic OPTION scale is acceptable and comprehensible by both health practitioners and public respondents. While their overall conclusion is encouraging, they do flag that the rigor of the analysis of the measure could have been improved if it had also been undertaken by a second, independent researcher and that further validation of the dyadic OPTION scale should be done before its use in research settings (Melbourne et al, 2010).