Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33976599›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2021

General Practitioners and Community Pharmacists' Collaboration in Primary Care: Small Steps for a Major Change.

Amber Damiaens, Jessica Fraeyman, Sarah Fakroune, Caroline Hutsebaut, Sandrine Roussel, Lieve Van Dyck, Guido Van Hal, Stephan Van den Broucke, Veerle Foulon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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.

Amber DamiaensDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9707-7052
Jessica FraeymanAssociation of Community Health Centers, Vooruitgangstraat 333 box 10, B-1030 Brussels.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-2298
Sarah FakrounePsychological Sciences Research Institute, UCLouvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10, B-1348, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7739-3207
Caroline HutsebautDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5581-658X
Sandrine RousselPsychological Sciences Research Institute, UCLouvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10, B-1348, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7031-5273
Lieve Van DyckDepartment of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-3344
Guido Van HalDepartment of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4611-4076
Stephan Van den BrouckePsychological Sciences Research Institute, UCLouvain, Place Cardinal Mercier 10, B-1348, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9090-8877
Veerle FoulonDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4053-3915

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare authorities worldwide search for ways to develop integrated care and interprofessional collaboration. In Belgium, Medical-Pharmaceutical Concertation (MPC) was introduced as a format to promote constructive dialogues between GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) with a focus on pharmacotherapy.

objectiveTo evaluate the implementation of MPC from the perspective of healthcare authorities and GPs/CPs.

methodsMixed-methods approach, including semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and service users, observations of MPC meetings and surveys in GPs/CPs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed inductively.

resultsThe implementation of MPC took a slow start. Parties involved had divergent views on the goals of the MPC: stakeholders focused on measurable results, while service users aimed on improving interprofessional communication. Additionally, service users felt that the lack of local structures hindered consensus building and implementation of agreements in daily practice. Support from professional associations was considered indispensable for the implementation of MPC. In order to organize this efficiently, the establishment of an independent institution, coordinating the MPC initiative, was highly recommended.

conclusionThe study confirms that a thorough context assessment prior to implementation of a complex project is needed and that a step-wise approach should be respected to achieve effective interprofessional relationships.

Indexed as

community pharmacygeneral practiceintegrated careinterprofessional collaborationprimary care

Identifiers

PMID33976599
PMCPMC8064283

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.