The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validating a conceptual model for an inter‐professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137 · cited 1×
“According to the literature, shared decision making (SDM) is an approach whereby practitioners and patients communicate around decisions, referring to the best available evidence and deliberating upon the consequences of each option [2–4].”
BackgroundFramework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“A conceptual model is an important element of the research process [13].”
BackgroundInterprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Reeves, S., Perrier, L., Goldman, J., Freeth, D., & Zwarenstein, M. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002213.pub3 · Cited by 1,946
Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., & Graham, I. D. (2008) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018 · Cited by 1,321
Self-citationBarriers to implementing cardiovascular risk tables in routine general practice
Steenkiste, B. V., Weijden, T. V. D., Stoffers, H. E. J. H., & Grol, R. (2004) · Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · doi:10.1080/02813430310004489 · Cited by 104
Légaré, F., Stacey, D., Graham, I. D., Elwyn, G., Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Frosch, D., Harrison, M. B., Kryworuchko, J., Pouliot, S., et al. (2008) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-2 · Cited by 76
Self-citation
Cited by
Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
Bomhof-Roordink, H., Gärtner, F. R., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763 · Cited by 532
You, J. J., Downar, J., Fowler, R. A., Lamontagne, F., Ma, I. W. Y., Jayaraman, D., Kryworuchko, J., Strachan, P. H., Ilan, R., Nijjar, A. P., et al. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7732 · Cited by 422
Self-citationTraining health professionals in shared decision-making: An international environmental scan
Légaré, F., Politi, M. C., Drolet, R., Desroches, S., Stacey, D., & Bekker, H. (2012) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.01.002 · Cited by 289
Self-citationCox, C. E., White, D. B., Hough, C. L., Jones, D. M., Kahn, J. M., Olsen, M. K., Lewis, C. L., Hanson, L. C., & Carson, S. S. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-2335 · Cited by 152
“ceptually grounded in the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, which addresses how to support individual decision needs by highlighting options and risks, identifying uncertainty, and clarifying health-related values (19).”
Ilott, I., Gerrish, K., Booth, A., & Field, B. (2013) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01876.x · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Légaré, F., Stacey, D., Gagnon, S., Dunn, S., Pluye, P., Frosch, D., Kryworuchko, J., Elwyn, G., Gagnon, M., & Graham, I. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-27
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 554-564
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W2107111828
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 21.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validating a conceptual model for an inter‐professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x
- The paper
- Légaré, F., Stacey, D., Gagnon, S., Dunn, S., Pluye, P., Frosch, D., Kryworuchko, J., Elwyn, G., Gagnon, M., & Graham, I. D. (2011). Validating a conceptual model for an inter‐professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.