Factors affecting collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) are encouraged to collaborate, a true collaborative relationship does not exist between them. Our objective was to identify and analyze factors affecting GP-CP collaboration. METHODS: This was a descriptive-exploratory qualitative study carried out in two Spanish regions: Catalonia (Barcelona) and Balearic Islands (Mallorca). Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and CPs from Barcelona and Mallorca (January 2010-February 2011). Analysis was conducted using Colaizzi's method. RESULTS: Thirty-seven interviews were conducted. The factors affecting the relationship were different depending on timing: 1) Before collaboration had started (prior to collaboration) and 2) Once the collaboration had been initiated (during collaboration). Prior to collaboration, four key factors were found to affect it: the perception of usefulness; the Primary Care Health Center (PCHC) manager's interest; the professionals' attitude; and geography and legislation. These factors were affected by economic and organizational aspects (i.e. resources or PCHC management styles) and by professionals' opinions and beliefs (i.e. perception of the existence of a public-private conflict). During collaboration, the achievement of objectives and the changes in the PCHC management were the key factors influencing continued collaboration. The most relevant differences between regions were due to the existence of privately-managed PCHCs in Barcelona that facilitated the implementation of collaboration. In comparison with the group with experience in collaboration, some professionals without experience reported a skeptical attitude towards it, reporting that it might not be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to economic issues, management and practitioners' attitudes and perceptions might be crucial for triggering collaboration. Interventions and strategies derived from these identified factors could be applied to achieve multidisciplinary collaboration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".