Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36612716›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness of Pharmacists in General Practice: A Cross-National Survey.

Thilini Sudeshika, Mark Naunton, Gregory M Peterson, Louise S Deeks, Line Guénette, Ravi Sharma, Christopher Freeman, Theo Niyonsenga, Sam Kosari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. 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
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Thilini SudeshikaDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5500-0353
Mark NauntonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6422-7170
Gregory M PetersonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6764-3882
Louise S DeeksDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8043-9528
Line GuénetteFaculty of Pharmacy, Laval University, Quebec, QC GIV 0A6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9769-7550
Ravi SharmaDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Christopher FreemanSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia.
Theo NiyonsengaHealth Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Sam KosariDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6737-1442
University of Canberra · AUQueensland Health · AUUniversité Laval · CAUniversity of Peradeniya · LKUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.

Indexed as

General PracticePharmacistsAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsMalePatient Care Teamcross-national surveygeneral practiceinterprofessional collaborationpharmacistteam effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID36612716
PMCPMC9819811
OpenAlexW4313360846

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.