Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36581431›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Community pharmacy and general practice collaborative and integrated working: a realist review protocol.

Emily Claire Owen, Ruth Abrams, Ziyue Cai, Claire Duddy, Nina Fudge, Julia Hamer-Hunt, Fran Husson, Kamal Ram Mahtani, Margaret Ogden, Deborah Swinglehurst and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. GP workforce sustainability to maximise effective and equitable patient care: a realist review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

14 authors.

Emily Claire OwenDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK emily.owen@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5558-8567
Ruth AbramsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Ziyue CaiResearch Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Claire DuddyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7083-6589
Nina FudgeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7161-4355
Julia Hamer-HuntDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Fran HussonDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Kamal Ram MahtaniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Margaret OgdenDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Deborah SwinglehurstWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1261-9268
Malcolm TurnerDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Cate WhittleseaResearch Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophie ParkDepartment of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1521-2052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIncreasing collaborative and integrated working between General practice (GP) and Community pharmacy (CP) is a key priority of the UK National Health Service and has been proposed as a solution to reducing health system fragmentation, improving synergies and coordination of care. However, there is limited understanding regarding how and under which circumstances collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP can be achieved in practice and how regulatory, organisational and systemic barriers can be overcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between GP and CP can provide the conditions necessary for optimal communication, decision-making, and collaborative and integrated working. A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence to make sense of the complexities inherent in the working relationships between GP and CP. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories; (2) searching for evidence (our main searches were conducted in April 2022); (3) article selection; (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will synthesise evidence from grey literature, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research. The research team will work closely with key stakeholders and include patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and the programme theory. Collectively, our refined programme theory will explain how collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP works (or not), for whom, how and under which circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be widely disseminated through: publication in peer-reviewed journals, seminars, international conference presentations, patients' association channels, social media, symposia and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022314280.

Indexed as

General PracticePharmaciesFamily PracticeHumansReview Literature as TopicState MedicineOrganisation of health servicesPRIMARY CAREPublic healthQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36581431
PMCPMC9806063

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.