Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):164-72. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.015. Epub 2009 Nov 30.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appraisal of SDM models highlights the need for a model that is more inclusive of an interprofessional approach.
对共享决策（SDM）概念模型进行理论分析，确定这些模型在多大程度上与临床实践中的跨专业合作相关。
从三篇系统评价和个人档案中确定 SDM 模型的理论分析。合格的出版物：SDM 模型；用关系陈述描述概念。两个独立评估的模型。
在 54 篇出版物中，有 15 个独特的模型包括 18 个核心概念。在两个包括不止一名卫生专业人员与患者合作的模型中，一个模型包括 10 个跨专业合作要素中的 3 个，另一个模型包括 1 个要素。其中 14 个被评为没有逻辑谬误，10 个被评为简约，7 个经过了实证检验，4 个提供了可检验的假设，3 个描述了开发过程。
大多数 SDM 模型都没有涵盖跨专业方法。那些至少包括两名专业人员的模型只满足了跨专业合作的少数要素，并且对 SDM 过程的描述有限。尽管这些模型被评为逻辑上合理和简约，但只有一半经过了测试，很少有模型是使用明确的过程开发的。
对 SDM 模型的评估突出了需要一个更具包容性的跨专业方法的模型。
