Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327136›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration of general practitioners and community pharmacists - a qualitative study.

Christin Löffler, Carolin Koudmani, Femke Böhmer, Susanne D Paschka, Jennifer Höck, Eva Drewelow, Martin Stremme, Bernd Stahlhacke, Attila Altiner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Christin LöfflerInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany. christin.loeffler@med.uni-rostock.de.
Carolin KoudmaniInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Femke BöhmerInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Susanne D PaschkaHospital Pharmacy, Rostock University Medical Center, Ernst-Heydemann Str. 7, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Jennifer HöckInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Eva DrewelowInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Martin StremmeInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Bernd StahlhackeChamber of Pharmacists of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Wismarsche Str. 304, 19055, Schwerin, Germany.
Attila AltinerInstitute of General Practice, Rostock University Medical Center, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite numerous evidences for the positive effect of community pharmacists on health care, interprofessional collaboration of pharmacists and general practitioners is very often limited. Though highly trained, pharmacists remain an underutilised resource in primary health care in most western countries. This qualitative study aims at investigating pharmacists' and general practitioners' views on barriers to interprofessional collaboration in the German health care system.

methodsA total of 13 narrative in-depth interviews, and two focus group discussions with 12 pharmacists and general practitioners in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a predominantly rural region of North-Eastern Germany, were conducted. The interviews aimed at exploring general practitioners' and pharmacists' attitudes, views and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. At a second stage, two focus group discussions were performed. Fieldwork was carried out by a multi-professional team. All interviews and focus group discussions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. The constant comparative method of analysis from grounded theory was applied to the data.

resultsThere are three main findings: First, mutual trust and appreciation appear to be important factors influencing the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Second, in light of negative personal experiences, pharmacists call for a predefined, clear and straightforward way to communicate with physicians. Third, given the increasing challenge to treat a rising number of elderly patients with chronic conditions, general practitioners desire competent support of experienced pharmacists.

conclusionsOn the ground of methodological triangulation the findings of this study go beyond previous investigations and are able to provide specific recommendations for future interprofessional collaboration. First, interventions and initiatives should focus on increasing trust, e.g. by implementing multi-professional local quality circles. Second, governments and health authorities in most countries have been and still are reluctant in advancing political initiatives that bring together physicians and pharmacists. Proactive lobbying and empowerment of pharmacists are extremely important in this context. In addition, future physician and pharmaceutical training curricula should focus on comprehensive pharmacist-physician interaction at early stages within both professional educations and careers. Developing and fostering a culture of continued professional exchange and appreciation is one major challenge of future policy and research.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsAgedCommunity Pharmacy ServicesCooperative BehaviorFemaleFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPharmaciesPharmacistsGeneral practitionersInterprofessional relationsPharmacistsPolypharmacyPrimary health careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28327136
PMCPMC5359890

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.