Development and validation of a tool to measure collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists: the professional collaborative practice tool
MetadatosMostrar el registro completo del ítem
AutorSánchez Molina, Ana I.; Benrimoj, Shalom I; Ferri García, Ramón; Martínez Martínez, Fernando; Gastelurrutia Garralda, Miguel Ángel
Community pharmacistsPhysiciansCollaborative practiceModelsInterprofessional collaborationToolMeasurement
Sanchez-Molina, A.I... [et al.]. Development and validation of a tool to measure collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists: the professional collaborative practice tool. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 649 (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08027-w]
PatrocinadorSpanish General Council of Official Colleges of Pharmacists; Cinfa Pharmaceuticals; Spanish General Council of Official Colleges of Pharmacy 21/1/204 UGR.CGCOF
Background: Collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists. Methods: The DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool’s reliability and content validity. Results: Three hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors “Activation for collaborative professional practice,” the “Integration in collaborative professional practice,” and the “Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice.” The tool demonstrated an adequate fit ( X2/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.924). Conclusions: The Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.