ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2023
General practitioners-community pharmacists pharmacotherapy discussion groups: Analysis of their implementation through a series of case studies.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences and challenges of implementing clinical medication reviews in daily practice: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- The role of the community pharmacist in antibiotic use - a commentary on current status and future perspectives.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Practices, strategies, and challenges in antibiotic treatment and prevention of antimicrobial resistance from the perspectives of Romanian community pharmacists and general practitioners: a Goffman-inspired qualitative interview study.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2024Article
- Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dispensing in Outpatients: Comparison of Different Measurement Approaches.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evolution of primary care practice has led to the implementation of pharmacotherapy discussion groups between general practitioners and community pharmacists (PPPDGs) in some countries. The aim of these groups is to improve drug prescribing practices and strengthen interprofessional relationships. Objective: To gain more insight into factors involved in successful implementation of PPPDGs. Methods: PPPDG implementation in three countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland), was analyzed in a series of case studies. A grid describing different evaluation criteria was completed by stakeholders in their respective country. The data collection was followed by a literature review. Results: Various models were used to implement PPPDGs within each country and different dynamics were encountered. PPPDGs lead to positive effects on the quality and cost-effectiveness of drug prescribing and on the collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs). Factors involved in implementation were also identified, such as expectations of GPs and CPs, configuration of the implemented model, and the role of CPs in the healthcare organization. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the factors involved in successful implementation of PPPDGs in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The findings can be used by healthcare professionals to improve the safety, cost-effectiveness of drug prescriptions and systems in primary care. This study offers a starting point for further research in the field.
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.