» Articles » PMID: 20695950

Validating a Conceptual Model for an Inter-professional Approach to Shared Decision Making: a Mixed Methods Study

Overview
Date 2010 Aug 11
PMID 20695950
Citations 92
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Supportive care in transplantation: A patient-centered care model to better support kidney transplant candidates and recipients.

Slominska A, Loban K, Kinsella E, Ho J, Sandal S World J Transplant. 2024; 14(4):97474.

PMID: 39697448 PMC: 11438939. DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v14.i4.97474.


Perceived usability and acceptability of the My-Hip Fracture risk communication tool from the perspective of academic clinicians.

Hommel E, Flaherty J, Aguirre C, McIlwain A, Pappadis M, Wegier P PEC Innov. 2024; 5:100360.

PMID: 39691556 PMC: 11650269. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100360.


Lessons for sustaining the elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome in the Caribbean.

Evans-Gilbert T, Broome K, Irons B, Lewis-Bell K, Ferdinand E, Figueroa J Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024; 48:e60.

PMID: 39687253 PMC: 11648150. DOI: 10.26633/RPSP.2024.60.


Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial.

Asmaou Bouba D, Gomes Souza L, Dofara S, Guay-Belanger S, Gadio S, Mochcovitch D J CME. 2024; 13(1):2420475.

PMID: 39502858 PMC: 11536683. DOI: 10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475.


Shared decision-making with patients with complex care needs: a scoping review.

Perron M, Hudon C, Roux-Levy P, Poitras M BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):390.

PMID: 39501147 PMC: 11536959. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02633-9.


References
1.
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P . Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract. 1999; 49(443):477-82. PMC: 1313449. View

2.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T . Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(5):681-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3. View

3.
Stacey D, Legare F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J, Dunn S . Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: a theory analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 80(2):164-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.015. View

4.
DAmour D, Oandasan I . Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an emerging concept. J Interprof Care. 2005; 19 Suppl 1:8-20. DOI: 10.1080/13561820500081604. View

5.
Jonas W, Beckner W, Coulter I . Proposal for an integrated evaluation model for the study of whole systems health care in cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006; 5(4):315-9. DOI: 10.1177/1534735406295565. View