OBJECTIVES: Several studies have shown that traditional statistical measures of association and agreement are not able to capture relevant appreciation of physician-patient relationship. Literature has shown evidence of miscommunication between: a) members of multidisciplinary team; b) teams and specialized care; and c) health care and user. The aim of study was to evaluate the properties of correspondence analysis technique, describing the viewpoint of health professionals on multidisciplinary teamwork and interaction with specialty assistance, and its contribution for shared decision-making process. METHODS: Cross sectional, descriptive study using a questionnaire, was applied in a face-to-face interview. A pilot questionnaire seeking improvement for sample calculation was conducted. We used descriptive analysis to map the results. Multiple correspondence analyses were performed to explore the outcomes and assumptions established. RESULTS: We interviewed 78 health professionals, 50% Caucasian, 82.5% female, mean age was 36.97 yrs (min. 22; max. 70, SD: 9.98). Participants were physicians (12.82%); nurses (14.1%); nurse technicians (25.64%); dentist (12.82%), dentist technicians (8.97%) and health assistance technicians (8.97%). Correspondence analysis plot illustrated that a multiprofessional team can improve patient's knowledge about their diseases and treatments and it can be a strategy for shared decision-making approach. However, for multiprofessional team maintenance, professional roles and responsibilities must be well defined. Regarding primary and specialty care communication, the plots showed that primary care usually refers patients to a specialist more than is needed, because they have low abilities to manage complex diseases. The willingness for shared decision-making approach is low due to high number of patients which they have to assist on primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Correspondence analysis suggested that multiprofessional team was involved on the process of health decision-making, which can improve the patient participation. However, roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined. These points can derive assumptions for shared decision-making approach and for strategies to its implementation on clinical practice.