Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

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 access
Légaré, France, Stacey, Dawn, Gagnon, Susie, Dunn, Sandy, Pluye, Pierre, Frosch, Dominick, Kryworuchko, Jennifer, Elwyn, Glyn, Gagnon, Marie‐Pierre, Graham, Ian D.·2011·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 259

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.