ArticleBJGP open2025
Understanding collaborative working between GPs and community pharmacists: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physicians' Perspectives on Collaboration with Community Pharmacists: Implications for Collaborative Care in Jordan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollaborative working between GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) has led to improvements in management of long-term conditions, and has strong policy backing, yet such joint working remains patchy and underdeveloped. Understanding the perspectives of GPs and CPs regarding collaboration provides insights for more sustainable collaborative practices.
aimTo understand the perspectives of GPs and CPs concerning collaborative care practices, and to develop a framework of factors that influence this collaborative working relationship. DESIGN &
settingA systematic review of qualitative studies.
methodFive databases were searched from inception to the 22 April 2023 for qualitative studies exploring GP and CP views on collaborative care services. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers at title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data extracted from eligible studies were analysed and synthesised thematically.
resultsThirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The following four main themes were identified: (1) how pre-existing relationships influence mutual understanding of roles; (2) the impact of co-location and communication on relationship building; (3) analysis of perceived costs and benefits of collaborative care; and (4) unequal motivation to collaborate.
conclusionA complex interplay of factors influences GP and CP collaborative working, including pre-existing relationships, communication and mutual understanding, and the balance of costs and benefits to further develop these relationships. When planning future collaborative care practices, stakeholders must take the time and initiative to elucidate and understand these factors within their own unique healthcare setting to form lasting working relationships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.