Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30736732›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Community pharmacy integration within the primary care pathway for people with long-term conditions: a focus group study of patients', pharmacists' and GPs' experiences and expectations.

Ali M K Hindi, Ellen I Schafheutle, Sally Jacobs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Ali M K HindiCentre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK. Ali.hindi@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1076-435X
Ellen I SchafheutleCentre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Sally JacobsCentre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to use marketing theory to examine the views of patients, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) on how community pharmacies are currently used and to identify how community pharmacy services may be better integrated within the primary care pathway for people with long-term conditions (LTCs).

methodsA qualitative research design was used. Two focus groups were conducted with respiratory patients (n = 6, 5) and two with type 2 diabetes patients (both n = 5). Two focus groups were held with pharmacists (n = 7, 5) and two with GPs (both n = 5). The "7Ps marketing mix" ("product", "price", "place", "promotion", "people", "process", "physical evidence") was used to frame data collection and analysis. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsDue to the access and convenience of community pharmacies ("place"), all stakeholder groups recommended using community pharmacies over GP practices for services such as management of minor ailments, medication reviews and routine check-ups for well managed LTCs ("product"). All stakeholder groups preferred pharmacy services with clear specifications which focused on specific interventions to reduce variability in service delivery and quality ("process"). However, all stressed the importance of having an appropriate system to share relevant information, allowing pharmacists and GPs two-way flow ("process"). Pharmacists and GPs mentioned difficulties in collaborating with each other due to inter-professional tensions arising from funding conflicts, which leads to duplication of services and inefficient workflow within the primary care pathway ("people"). Patients and GPs were sometimes doubtful of community pharmacies' potential to expand services due to limited space, size and poor quality consultation rooms ("physical evidence"). However, all stakeholder groups recommended promoting community pharmacy services locally and nationally ("promotion"). Patients felt the most effective form of promotion was first-hand experience of high quality pharmacy services and peer word-of-mouth. The added value of using pharmacy services was faster access and convenience for patients, and freeing up GPs' time to focus on more complex patients ("value").

conclusionsUsing the 7Ps marketing mix highlighted factors which could influence utilisation and integration of community pharmacy services within the primary care pathway for patients with LTCs. Further research is needed to identify their relative importance.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthGeneral PractitionersPharmacistsAsthmaChronic DiseaseCommunity Pharmacy ServicesDiabetes MellitusEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePatient Care TeamPrimary Health CarePulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveCollaborationCommunity pharmacyGeneral practiceGeneral practitionersIntegrationLong-term conditionPatientsPharmacistsPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID30736732
PMCPMC6368723

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.