Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28877940›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2017

Qualitative meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of community pharmacy services: perspectives of patients, nurses and general medical practitioners.

Lutfun N Hossain, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Tim Luckett, Joanna C Moullin, Desire Durks, Lucia Franco-Trigo, Shalom I Benrimoj, Daniel Sabater-Hernández

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  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. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lutfun N HossainGraduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Fernando Fernandez-LlimosDepartment of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Research Institute for Medicines, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal.
Tim Luckett
Joanna C MoullinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, California, USA.
Desire DurksGraduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucia Franco-TrigoGraduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shalom I BenrimojGraduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Daniel Sabater-HernándezGraduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe integration of community pharmacy services (CPSs) into primary care practice can be enhanced by assessing (and further addressing) the elements that enable (ie, facilitators) or hinder (ie, barriers) the implementation of such CPSs. These elements have been widely researched from the perspective of pharmacists but not from the perspectives of other stakeholders who can interact with and influence the implementation of CPSs. The aim of this study was to synthesise the literature on patients', general practitioners' (GPs) and nurses' perspectives of CPSs to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation in Australia.

methodsA meta-synthesis of qualitative studies was performed. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus and Informit was conducted to identify studies that explored patients', GPs' or nurses' views about CPSs in Australia. Thematic synthesis was performed to identify elements influencing CPS implementation, which were further classified using an ecological approach.

resultsTwenty-nine articles were included in the review, addressing 63 elements influencing CPS implementation. Elements were identified as a barrier, facilitator or both and were related to four ecological levels: individual patient (n=14), interpersonal (n=24), organisational (n=16) and community and healthcare system (n=9). It was found that patients, nurses and GPs identified elements reported in previous pharmacist-informed studies, such as pharmacist's training/education or financial remuneration, but also new elements, such as patients' capability to follow service's procedures, the relationships between GP and pharmacy professional bodies or the availability of multidisciplinary training/education.

conclusionsPatients, GPs and nurses can describe a large number of elements influencing CPS implementation. These elements can be combined with previous findings in pharmacists-informed studies to produce a comprehensive framework to assess barriers and facilitators to CPS implementation. This framework can be used by pharmacy service planners and policy makers to improve the analysis of the contexts in which CPSs are implemented.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional RoleAustraliaCommunity Pharmacy ServicesHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchbarriersCommunity pharmacy servicesdeterminants of practicefacilitatorshealth service researchqualitative meta-synthesis

Identifiers

PMID28877940
PMCPMC5588935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.