| Title |
Controversy and consensus on a clinical pharmacist in primary care in the Netherlands
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0360-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ankie C. M. Hazen, Aletta W. van der Wal, Vivianne M. Sloeserwij, Dorien L. M. Zwart, Johan J. de Gier, Niek J. de Wit, Anne J. Leendertse, Marcel L. Bouvy, Antoinette A. de Bont |
| Abstract |
Background Controversy about the introduction of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice hampers implementation. Objective The aim of this study is to systematically map the debate on this new role for pharmacists amongst all stakeholders to uncover and understand the controversy and consensus. Primary health care in the Netherlands. Method Q methodology. 163 participants rank-ordered statements on issues concerning the integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice. Stakeholder perspectives on the role of the non-dispensing pharmacist and pharmaceutical care in primary care. Results This study identified the consensus on various features of the non-dispensing pharmacist role as well as the financial, organisational and collaborative aspects of integrating a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice. Q factor analysis revealed four perspectives: "the independent community pharmacist", "the independent clinical pharmacist", "the dependent clinical pharmacist" and "the medication therapy management specialist". These four perspectives show controversies to do with the level of professional independency of the non-dispensing pharmacist and the level of innovation of task performance. Conclusion Despite the fact that introducing new professional roles in healthcare can lead to controversy, the results of this Q study show the potential of a non-dispensing pharmacist as a pharmaceutical care provider and the willingness for interprofessional collaboration. The results from the POINT intervention study in the Netherlands will be an important next step in resolving current controversies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 30 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#890
of 1,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,196
of 365,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#24
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.