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
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Sánchez Molina, Ana I.; Benrimoj, Shalom I; Ferri García, Ramón; Martínez Martínez, Fernando; Gastelurrutia Garralda, Miguel ÁngelEditorial
BMC
Materia
Community pharmacists Physicians Collaborative practice Models Interprofessional collaboration Tool Measurement
Date
2022-05-14Referencia bibliográfica
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]
Patrocinador
Spanish General Council of Official Colleges of Pharmacists; Cinfa Pharmaceuticals; Spanish General Council of Official Colleges of Pharmacy 21/1/204 UGR.CGCOFRésumé
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.