4.1 Article

Power dynamics and interprofessional collaboration: How do community pharmacists position general practitioners, and how do general practitioners position themselves?

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13561820.2022.2148637

Keywords

Interprofessional collaboration; pharmacists; physicians; positioning theory; power dynamics; medical dominance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, positioning theory was used to explore power dynamics between Norwegian general practitioners and community pharmacists. The findings suggest that medical dominance still poses challenges in an egalitarian Norwegian setting, but alternative storylines of collaboration between pharmacists and GPs were also identified.
Power differentials and medical dominance can negatively affect collaboration between physicians and pharmacists. Norway is recognized as having a relatively egalitarian work sector, which could affect power differentials. In this qualitative study, we used positioning theory as a framework to explore the aspect of power dynamics between Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. We used the concepts of reflexive and interactive positioning to identify how GPs positioned themselves and how they were positioned by pharmacists in six focus groups. Data were analyzed using systematic text condensation. We found positioning theory to be a useful lens through which to study power dynamics in relation to collaboration between community pharmacists and GPs. Our findings imply that the presence of medical dominance poses challenges even in an egalitarian Norwegian setting. However, although both GPs and pharmacists draw on a 'medical dominance' storyline, we have also identified how both pharmacists and GPs draw on alternative and promising storylines of collaboration between the two professions.

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