Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27473710›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Controversy and consensus on a clinical pharmacist in primary care in the Netherlands.

Ankie C M Hazen, Aletta W van der Wal, Vivianne M Sloeserwij, Dorien L M Zwart, Johan J de Gier, Niek J de Wit, Anne J Leendertse, Marcel L Bouvy, Antoinette A de Bont

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Public's Perception of Pharmacist.Journal of patient experience · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research.BMC medical research methodology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ankie C M HazenDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.c.m.hazen@umcutrecht.nl.
Aletta W van der WalDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Vivianne M SloeserwijDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dorien L M ZwartDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johan J de GierDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Niek J de WitDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anne J LeendertseDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Antoinette A de BontInstitute for Policy and Management in Health Care, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledBackground Controversy about the introduction of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice hampers implementation. Objective The aim of this study is to systematically map the debate on this new role for pharmacists amongst all stakeholders to uncover and understand the controversy and consensus.

settingPrimary health care in the Netherlands. Method Q methodology. 163 participants rank-ordered statements on issues concerning the integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice.

main outcome measureStakeholder perspectives on the role of the non-dispensing pharmacist and pharmaceutical care in primary care. Results This study identified the consensus on various features of the non-dispensing pharmacist role as well as the financial, organisational and collaborative aspects of integrating a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice. Q factor analysis revealed four perspectives: "the independent community pharmacist", "the independent clinical pharmacist", "the dependent clinical pharmacist" and "the medication therapy management specialist". These four perspectives show controversies to do with the level of professional independency of the non-dispensing pharmacist and the level of innovation of task performance. Conclusion Despite the fact that introducing new professional roles in healthcare can lead to controversy, the results of this Q study show the potential of a non-dispensing pharmacist as a pharmaceutical care provider and the willingness for interprofessional collaboration. The results from the POINT intervention study in the Netherlands will be an important next step in resolving current controversies.

Indexed as

ConsensusProfessional RoleAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPharmacistsPrimary Health CareClinical pharmacistGeneral practitionerIntegrated careNetherlandsPrimary careQ method

Identifiers

PMID27473710
PMCPMC5031727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.