and their underlying models have targeted a single profes- sional group and/or the evaluation of patient decision aids (Elwyn et al., 2004; O’Connor et al., 1998; Stacey et al., 2005). Furthermore, most interprofessional models have failed to conceptualise patients’ active participation in decision-making when healthcare teams are involved (D’Amour & Oandasan, 2005; D’Amour et al., 2005). We argue that a model for an interprofessional approach to SDM could improve the quality of decision support provided to patients in team-based primary care practices: such a model would truly value patient-centered care. An interprofessional approach could further improve the quality of care by fostering continuity in the decision-making process, namely through SDM, within the multiple components of the healthcare system (Haggerty et al., 2003). Consequently, we sought to propose a new model for an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary care. This article reports on the ﬁrst step towards this goal, namely, the development of and agreement on a new interprofessional model for primary care (IP-SDM). METHODS In this section, we summarise the methods used for developing and achieving consensus on a new IP-SDM model. More information about our methods can be found in our published protocol (Le´gare´ et al., 2008a). Identiﬁcation of key concepts We drew concepts from three systematic reviews (Briss et al., 2004; Makoul & Clayman, 2006; Moumjid et al., 2007) and our personal references to identify models of SDM eligible for inclusion in our study. Our eligibility criteria for SDM models were as follows: a model that (1) refers to SDM or a related concept, deﬁned as a decision-making process that involves the patient and the health professional(s); (2) describes the concepts used; and (3) indicates relationships between the concepts. For the purpose of this study, ‘‘models’’ refer to conceptual models or frameworks, and theories. Conceptual models represent sets of concepts (i.e. words describing mental images of phenomena) and the propositions (i.e. statements about the relationships between concepts) that integrate the concepts into a meaningful conﬁguration (Fawcett, 1989b). Conceptual models are rarely static and many evolve as evidence emerges. Eventually, a conceptual model can become a theory with a narrower focus that can be refuted experimentally (Popper, 2002 reprint). To select interprofessional models, we drew from the results of two systematic reviews that identiﬁed the key concepts relevant to interprofessionalism (D’Amour et al., 2005; Xyrichis & Ream, 2008). Two reviewers independently identiﬁed eligible models. Then, using a standardised extraction form, they indepen- dently extracted key concepts reported in each identiﬁed model. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with the co-principal investigators. Key concepts of SDM and inter- professionalism were merged in a list for participants to use during the consensus-building exercise. 2011 Informa UK, Ltd. INTERPROFESSIONALISM AND SHARED DECISION-MAKING 19 Elaboration of the model In May 2008, 11 team members attended a two-day workshop. Most attendees were both researchers and healthcare providers from various professions and dis- ciplines (four nurses, three physicians, one dietician, one psychologist, one anthropologist, and one community health specialist). They came from three countries: Canada, the UK and the US. Participants had been informed that the goal of the workshop was to achieve consensus on a new IP- SDM model. A doctoral candidate with expertise in public involvement in policymaking facilitated the workshop. On the ﬁrst day, workshop participants were presented with the key SDM and interprofessional concepts that our team had gleaned from its synthesis of concepts presented in SDM models and interprofessional projects. Participants were asked to use these concepts as building blocks for a new IP-SDM model. Participants were divided into three small interdisciplinary groups and were charged with using the blocks to develop and draw the ﬁgure of a new conceptual model in primary care. They were not obliged to use all the blocks and they were allowed to add concepts not listed if they felt it important to do so. After this exercise, each group presented their model to the others. Following the presentations, participants independently evaluated each of the three models proposed, using nine theory appraisal criteria (Fawcett, 1989a; Walker & Avant, 2005). They then discussed each model. Consensus-building exercise Based on the presentation of the three models, the results of the critical appraisal, and the group discussion, participants agreed that to capture the complexity of the environment in which an interprofessional approach to SDM would take place, the ﬁnal model should acknowledge both individual level (micro) and healthcare system (meso and macro) levels. In this context, it is unsurprising that the two models rated most highly by participants were found to be complementary: one was oriented towards individuals and the other towards healthcare systems. On the second day of the workshop, participants assigned themselves to one of two groups corresponding to the two most highly rated models. Each group revised its model and presented its revisions to the other group. The two revised models (focused either on the individual level or the healthcare system levels) were then integrated in a ﬁnal model. Participants were asked to critically appraise this model using the nine theory appraisal criteria. Figure 1 summarises the model development process. RESULTS Key concepts of interprofessionalism and shared decision- making Between September 2007 and April 2008, our team identiﬁed 18 key SDM concepts (Stacey et al., 2009). We also analysed two systematic reviews on interprofessionalism (D’Amour