Instruments identified to measure indicators of the Shared Decision Making model (Coutu et al., 2015)

Instruments identified to measure indicators of the Shared Decision Making model (Coutu et al., 2015) Instruments 1 Authors Concepts measured Validation 1- OPTION Observing Patient Involvement 2- Observational Grid 3- Working Alliance (dyadic measurement: worker and HCP 3 versions) 4- Ways of Mattering [1] Rate the 12 basic skills needed for SDM 2 on a fivepoint scale from 0 (behaviour not observed) to 4 (skill observed and exhibited to a high standard). Developed for this study. 22 items rated on categorical scales (i.e.: yes, no, and minimal observation) document aspects of the working alliance (cooperation, clinician s selfregulation); Problem needing an SDM process; establishing common objective and an action plan. [3] 12 items rated on a Likert scale (1 never to 7 = always) measuring the perception of the relationship established, of the task performed, and of the goals pursued. [4, 5] 24 Items rated on a Likert scale (1 very rare to 5 = very often) measuring the attention, importance given to the patient by the clinician. The feeling that the clinician is interested in the patient and the dependence (the patient s contribution is seen as essential). Good construct validity and [2] and has yielded very high inter-rater agreement, with intra-class correlation coefficient scores of 0.77 [1]. High internal consistency has also been observed [2]. Tested for item clarity for this study. High Cronbach s alphas have been observed [3] for each of the three constructs, and ranged from 0.83 to 0.98. High Cronbach s alphas varying from 0.82 to 0.91. 1 The number in front of each instrument correspond to the one in the SDM model s indicators. 2 Shared Decision Making 3 Health Care Professionnal

5- Return to work Obstacles and Coping Efficacy Musculoskeletal Disorder 6- The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ) 7- Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) [6] 97 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7 (Part A: 1 = Not an obstacle, 7 = Big obstacle; Part B: 1 = Not at all able to 7 = Completely able) measuring 8 dimensions that could be a hindering factor for return to work and the level of selfefficacy to overcome each obstacle (general health; motivation/self-efficacy; social support; workplace; workstation; interpersonal relationship with colleague and supervisor; relations with insurer; personal life). [8] 8 items rated on a Likert scale varying from 0 to 10 with the anchor description being adapted to the item. It measures the components of illness representation (identity/ symptoms; control, timeline, coherence, emotional representation, consequences, causes). One item ask to rank-order the three most important factors that caused the illness. [9] 16 items rated on a Likert scale (1 strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree) measuring the uncertainty in choosing options, modifiable factors contributing to uncertainty (information, values and social support). Under study [7] Moderate to strong correlations (r =.46 0.63), with the exception of the personal (r =.33) and treatment control (r =.32) subscales [8]. Testretest reliability coefficient at 3 and 6-week interval varies from.42 to.75. The predictive validity at 3-month is satisfactory on functional status and quality of life. Test-retest reliability coefficient at 2-week interval is of 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. Discriminant validity is satisfactory. A weak inverse correlation (r = - 0.16, p < 0.05) is observed between the DCS and knowledge test

8- Ottawa Personal Decision Guide 9- Agreement Questionnaire (worker and HCP versions) 10- Work Status Questionnaire 11- Decisional Regret Scale 12- Patient s Satisfaction [10] A structured interview based on four sections assessing the decisional needs, such as the knowledge, values, level of certainty, and social support or pressure. Developed for this study. [12] 7 items rated on a Likert scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) measuring the perception of the feasibility and the meaningfulness of the objective, the option, the action plan. 3 open questions assess the objective, the option and the action plan as perceived by the worker or the HCP are also documented. If HCP made a recommendation (y/n) is documented. The dyadic measure helps identify the agreement between the worker and the HCP on the objective, the option and the action plan. By means of a decision tree three categories of work status are identified: (1) back at work (old job or another job; full-time or part-time); (2) absent from work due to a treated problem; (3) absent from work for a reason other than the treated problem. [13] 5 items on a Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree) measuring the level of regret regarding a decision. [14] Adaptation of the 6 rated on a Likert scale (1 strongly scores. Good apparent construct validity [11]. Not available Not available Cronbach s alphas varying from 0.81 to 0.92. Cronbach s alphas varying from 0.8 to 0.9.

Questionnaire 13- Practitioner s Satisfaction Scale disagree to 5 = strongly agree) measuring the level of satisfaction with the SDM consultation. [14] An adaptation using 11 items on a Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = completely) measuring the level of satisfaction with the SDM consultation. 14- Functional Status [15] 2 items on a 0 to 100% scale (0 = not at all to 100% as before the accident) assesses the percentage of work or activity of daily living currently being carried out by the worker and compared with before the accident or injury. 15- Semi-Structured Individual Interview Developed for this study Semi-structured individual interviews guide documenting workers and stakeholders perception of the factors hindering and facilitating SDM implementation. Questions are from Love [16] as part of the implementation evaluation and based on the indicators established within the SDM program. Cronbach s alphas varying from 0.8 to 0.9. Not available Pretested among target audiences for relevance and clarity of questions.

References 1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung W-Y, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expectations. 2005;8:34-42. 2. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTIONS scale for measuring patient involvement. Quality and Safety in health care. 2003;12:93-99. 3. Corbière M, Bisson J, Lauzon S, Ricard N. Factorial validation of a French short-form of the Working Alliance Inventory. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2006;15(1):36-45. 4. Amundson NE. Mattering: A foundation for employment counseling and training. Journal of Employment Counseling. 1993;30:146-152. 5. Corbière M, Amundson NE. Perceptions of The Ways of Mattering by People with Mental Illness Registered in Supported Employment Programs. Career Development Quarterly. 2007;56(2):141-149. 6. Corbière M, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Goulet C, Charpentier N, et al. Obstacles au Retour au Travail Et Sentiment d Efficacité pour les Surmonter- Troubles Musculosquelettiques (ORTESES-TMS). 2009. 7. Corbière M, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Fassier JB, Loisel P. Validation du questionnaire Obstacles au Retour au Travail et Sentiment d'efficacité pour les Surmonter (ORTESES) auprès de travailleurs avec un trouble musculosquelettique ou un trouble mental courant - Validation of the Return to Work Obstacles and Coping Efficacy Scale (ROCES) for people with musculoskeletal disorders and common mental disorders. Quebec, Canada: Institut de Recherche Robert Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail; 2011-2013. 8. Broadbent E, Petriea KJ, Maina J, Weinman J. The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2006;60(6):631-637. 9. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical Decision Making. 1995;15:25-30. 10. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Jacobsen MJ. The Ottawa Personal Decision Guide for People Facing Tough Health or Social Decisions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa; 2012. 11. O'Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ, Stacey D. An evidence-based approach to managing women's decisional conflict.. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing. 2002;31(5):570-581. 12. Durand MJ. Étude des effets du Retour Thérapeutique au Travail chez des travailleurs absents du travail suite à une lésion professionnelle au dos. Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke; 1996. 13. Brehaut JC, O'Connor A, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Medical Decision Making. 2003;23(4):281-292. 14. Tercyak KP, Johnson SB, Roberts SF, Cruz AC. Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Education And Counseling. 2001;43(1):73-84. 15. Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Loisel P, Beaudet J, Imbeau D. Travailleurs de la construction ayant une dorso-lombalgie: Évaluation de l'implantation d'un programme de collaboration

précoce en réadaptation. Montréal, Québec, Canada: Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé sécurité du travail. 2007. 16. Love A. Implementation evaluation. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE, editors. Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2004. p. 63-97.