Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: A theory analysis

被引:113
作者
Stacey, Dawn [1 ,2 ]
Legare, France [3 ,4 ]
Pouliot, Sophie [3 ]
Kryworuchko, Jennifer [1 ]
Dunn, Sandy [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Sch Nursing, Fac Hlth Sci, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada
[2] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Ctr Hosp Univ Quebec, Res Ctr, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[4] Univ Laval, Dept Family & Emergency Med, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Shared decision making; Interprofessional; Theory analysis; Patient centred care; Decision coaching; HEALTH-CARE; MEDICAL ENCOUNTER; FRAMEWORK; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.015
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective: To conduct a theory analysis of shared decision making (SDM) conceptual models and determine the extent to which the models are relevant to interprofessional collaboration in clinical practice. Methods: Theory analysis of SDM models identified from three systematic reviews and personal files. Eligible publications: model of SDM; described concepts with relational statements. Two independently appraised models. Results: Of 54 publications, 15 unique models included 18 core concepts. Of two models that included more than one health professional collaborating with the patient, one included 3 of 10 elements of interprofessional collaboration and the other included 1 element. Fourteen were rated as having no logical fallacies, 10 as parsimonious, 7 had been empirically tested, 4 provided testable hypotheses, and 3 described the development process. Conclusion: Most SDM models failed to encompass an interprofessional approach. Those that included at least two professionals met few of the elements of interprofessional collaboration and had limited description of SDM processes. Although models were rated as logically adequate and parsimonious, only half were tested and few were developed using an explicit process. Practice implications: Appraisal of SDM models highlights the need for a model that is more inclusive of an interprofessional approach. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:164 / 172
页数:9
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], J INTERPROFESS CAR S
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, A framework for the development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health
[3]   Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems [J].
Briss, P ;
Rimer, B ;
Reilley, B ;
Coates, RC ;
Lee, NC ;
Mullen, P ;
Corso, P ;
Hutchinson, AB ;
Hiatt, R ;
Kerner, J ;
George, P ;
White, C ;
Gandhi, N ;
Saraiya, M ;
Breslow, R ;
Isham, G ;
Teutsch, SM ;
Hinman, AR ;
Lawrence, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2004, 26 (01) :67-80
[4]   Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango) [J].
Charles, C ;
Gafni, A ;
Whelan, T .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1997, 44 (05) :681-692
[5]   Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model [J].
Charles, C ;
Gafni, A ;
Whelan, T .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 49 (05) :651-661
[6]   ANATOMY OF A DECISION [J].
EDDY, DM .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (03) :441-443
[7]   Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars [J].
Elwyn, G ;
Edwards, A ;
Gwyn, R ;
Grol, R .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7212) :753-756
[8]   4 MODELS OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP [J].
EMANUEL, EJ ;
EMANUEL, LL .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 267 (16) :2221-2226
[9]   Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework [J].
Entwistle, Vikki A. ;
Watt, Ian S. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2006, 63 (03) :268-278
[10]  
FAWCETT J, 1989, F A DAVIS CO, P2