Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34574606›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Pharmacists' Perspectives on Interprofessional Collaboration with Physicians in Poland: A Quantitative Study.

Łucja Zielińska-Tomczak, Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska, Piotr Przymuszała, Natalia Gałązka, Ryszard Marciniak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Knowledge and Practice of Antibiotic Management and Prudent Prescribing among Polish Medical Doctors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Łucja Zielińska-TomczakDepartment of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 7 Rokietnicka St., 60-806 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6419-5773
Magdalena Cerbin-KoczorowskaDepartment of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 7 Rokietnicka St., 60-806 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0940-1006
Piotr PrzymuszałaDepartment of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 7 Rokietnicka St., 60-806 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8785-724X
Natalia GałązkaStudents' Scientific Club of Medical Education, Department of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-806 Poznan, Poland.
Ryszard MarciniakDepartment of Medical Education, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 7 Rokietnicka St., 60-806 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-7878-7403

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the years, many studies have emphasized the pharmacist's importance as part of the patient care team. Still, the interprofessional collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in their everyday work seems rare. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the types of contact between them, possible mutual collaboration, and barriers to implementation. This study was conducted from April to August 2020. The study group included licensed pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Poland (

Indexed as

PharmacistsPhysiciansAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHumansInterprofessional RelationsPolandProfessional Rolecollaboration barrierscommunity pharmacistsinterprofessional collaborationphysician–pharmacist collaboration

Identifiers

PMID34574606
PMCPMC8470388

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.