4.1 Article

Exploring the nature of power distance on general practitioner and community pharmacist relations in a chronic disease management context

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 440-446

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.906390

Keywords

Interprofessional collaboration; power; professional practice; qualitative method

Funding

  1. Pharmaceutical Society of Western Australia through the J.M. O'Hara research fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To improve collaboration in Australian primary health care, there is a need to understand aspects of the general practitioner (GP)/community pharmacist relationship, its influence on collaborative chronic disease management (CDM) and if this influence can be explained by a pre-existing theory or concept. Adopting a grounded theory approach, 22 GP and 22 community pharmacist semi-structured interviews were undertaken. Analysis of the transcripts identified common themes regarding the GP/community pharmacist relationship. Trustworthiness of the themes identified was tested through negative case analysis and member checking. Hofstede's (in 1980) phenomenon of power distance was employed to illuminate the nature of GP/community pharmacist relations. The majority of GPs and community pharmacists described the characteristics of this phenomenon. The power distance was based on knowledge and expertise and was shown to be a barrier to collaboration between GPs and community pharmacists because GPs perceived that community pharmacists did not have the required expertise to improve CDM above what the GP could deliver alone. Power distance exists within the GP/community pharmacist relationship and has a negative influence on GP/community pharmacist collaborative CDM. Understanding and improving GP awareness of community pharmacist expertise has important implications for the future success of collaborative CDM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available