ArticleBMJ open2023
Developing consensus on the principles and key actions for collaborative working between general practices and community pharmacies: a modified eDelphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' Perspectives on Collaboration with Community Pharmacists: Implications for Collaborative Care in Jordan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Understanding collaborative working between GPs and community pharmacists: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Article
- Developing knowledge, attitude and practice questionnaire in desmoid tumours (KAPID study): applying e-Delphi to rare diseases.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop consensus on the principles and key actions for collaborative working in practice between general practice, community pharmacy and patients and their carers.
designThree-round modified eDelphi study, starting from an established conceptual model of collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists.
settingCommunity pharmacies and general practices in England, UK.
participantsA panel of 123 experts: 43% from a community pharmacy background; 36% from a GP background; 13% patients, carers or patient representatives and 8% from academic or commissioner backgrounds. Panellist numbers reduced by approximately 30% in rounds 2 and 3. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus between expert panellists, defined as at least 75% agreement.
resultsA high level of consensus (>80%) was achieved on all components of a model of collaboration composed of Fundamental Principles of Collaboration and Key Activities for Action, supported by a series of aspirational statements and suggested practical actions. The fundamental principles and key activities are appended by contextual points. The findings indicate that collaboration in practice involves team members other than just GPs and community pharmacists and recognises that patients often want to know how each professional team is involved in their care. This study also provides insights into how collaboration between general practice and community pharmacy settings appears to have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially through opportunities for virtual collaboration and communication that can transcend the need for close geographical proximity.
conclusionA consensus-based model of collaboration between general practice teams, community pharmacy teams, and patients and their carers has been developed. It is practically focused, values the patient voice and incorporates general practice and community pharmacy team members. While developed in England, the model is likely to also have applicability to other countries with similar health systems that include general practices and community pharmacies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.