↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration of general practitioners and community pharmacists - a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration of general practitioners and community pharmacists - a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2157-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christin Löffler, Carolin Koudmani, Femke Böhmer, Susanne D. Paschka, Jennifer Höck, Eva Drewelow, Martin Stremme, Bernd Stahlhacke, Attila Altiner

Abstract

Despite numerous evidences for the positive effect of community pharmacists on health care, interprofessional collaboration of pharmacists and general practitioners is very often limited. Though highly trained, pharmacists remain an underutilised resource in primary health care in most western countries. This qualitative study aims at investigating pharmacists' and general practitioners' views on barriers to interprofessional collaboration in the German health care system. A total of 13 narrative in-depth interviews, and two focus group discussions with 12 pharmacists and general practitioners in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, a predominantly rural region of North-Eastern Germany, were conducted. The interviews aimed at exploring general practitioners' and pharmacists' attitudes, views and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. At a second stage, two focus group discussions were performed. Fieldwork was carried out by a multi-professional team. All interviews and focus group discussions were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. The constant comparative method of analysis from grounded theory was applied to the data. There are three main findings: First, mutual trust and appreciation appear to be important factors influencing the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Second, in light of negative personal experiences, pharmacists call for a predefined, clear and straightforward way to communicate with physicians. Third, given the increasing challenge to treat a rising number of elderly patients with chronic conditions, general practitioners desire competent support of experienced pharmacists. On the ground of methodological triangulation the findings of this study go beyond previous investigations and are able to provide specific recommendations for future interprofessional collaboration. First, interventions and initiatives should focus on increasing trust, e.g. by implementing multi-professional local quality circles. Second, governments and health authorities in most countries have been and still are reluctant in advancing political initiatives that bring together physicians and pharmacists. Proactive lobbying and empowerment of pharmacists are extremely important in this context. In addition, future physician and pharmaceutical training curricula should focus on comprehensive pharmacist-physician interaction at early stages within both professional educations and careers. Developing and fostering a culture of continued professional exchange and appreciation is one major challenge of future policy and research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 36 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 23 21%

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 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,012,430
of 9,243,111 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,180
of 3,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,637
of 259,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#96
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,243,111 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 259,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.