The majority of existing patient-reported measures in this area are also relatively lengthy [1], with the exception of SURE [24]. This obstructs their use in routine practice limiting the accuracy and immediacy of data feedback

that health professionals could use to assess their selleck performance and that could alert patients to aspects of care they should expect. Indeed the development of short or even single-item measures in related fields, such as self-reported health status, have demonstrated adequate levels of validity and reliability [41]. Despite the limited use of patient-reported feedback by health professionals, such feedback mechanisms have been shown to have a positive impact on clinical practice [42], and patient participation in medical care has also been associated with a range of positive health outcomes [43]. The dominant conceptualization of shared decision making focuses on just two key dimensions, namely: (1) health professional disclosure and patient

understanding of information about health care options and Palbociclib outcomes and (2) the option chosen is congruent with individual patient values and preferences [44] and [45]. While this conceptualization has been criticized for being narrow [46], in that it overlooks the broader aspects of patient role and the relationship with the clinician, measures focusing on core dimensions of shared decision making offer a more tangible target for assessment purposes. In addition, Glass [47] found significant positive associations between these dimensions and patient satisfaction with decision making. Our goal was to develop a patient-reported

measure of the extent of shared decision making process in clinical encounters that is pragmatic as well as valid. We set out to develop a measure that was sufficiently Montelukast Sodium generic that it could be applied to all clinical encounters and for all conditions, as well as brief enough for use in routine practice. The aim of this study is therefore to report the development of a fast and frugal measure of shared decision making, where we included the use of cognitive interviews to examine the validity of a provisional set of dimensions and items. In this article, we describe the development of CollaboRATE, a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making, which incorporated four stages of development: item formulation, two stages of cognitive interviewing with potential end-users and pilot testing of the final set of items. Participants were men and women, over 18 years old who could read English, and were recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.