Validating a conceptual model for an inter‐professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter‐professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada. Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP‐SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires. Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter‐professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter‐professional collaboration, SDM and primary care. Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP‐SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 45

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.
    Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model · 2010

    No notice
33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 3

• “They Should Be Asking Us”: A Qualitative Decisional Needs Assessment for Women Considering Cervical Cancer Screening · 2018
  Not checked
• Towards a taxonomy for integrated care: a mixed-methods study · 2015
  No notice
• Most important factors for the implementation of shared decision making in sciatica care: ranking among professionals and patients. · 2014
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.