Cited by 25Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePharmacy and Medical PracticesMedication Adherence and Compliance

Healthcare professional-patient relationships: Systematic review of theoretical models from a community pharmacy perspective

Sabater-Galindo, Marta, Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando, Sabater-Hernández, Daniel, Martínez-Martínez, Fernando, Benrimoj, Shalom Isaac·2016·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective To identify health care professional-patient relationship theoretical models and individual factors that may have an influence on this relationship and be relevant to community pharmacy practice.Methods Using the recommended methodology by Prisma Statement, a search was undertaken in PubMed for health care professional-patient relationship theoretical models that included individual factors.Results Eight theoretical models met the inclusion criteria. These models were classified based on their aim, their focus on the interaction process, external factors influencing the process, and their practical applications. The most common influential modifiable factors were knowledge, needs, values, expectations, beliefs and perceptions.Conclusion 'The Theory of Goal Attainment' (TGA) appears to be the most useful model for community pharmacy practice. The perceptions and expectations of both patients and pharmacists could be the two most interesting modifiable factors to apply in pharmacy practice. These modifiable influential factors could be altered by specific training such as behavioral aspects.Practice implications No theoretical model has been specifically developed for analyzing the community pharmacist-patient relationship. TGA may be appropriate for community pharmacy practice, since it takes into consideration both, attaining patients health outcomes, as well as improving patient-pharmacist relationship.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2015.09.010

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sabater-Galindo, M., Fernandez-Llimos, F., Sabater-Hernández, D., Martínez-Martínez, F., & Benrimoj, S. I.
Affiliations
University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Sabater-Galindo, Marta
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
99
Issue
3
Pages
339-347
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1864291908
Cited by
25
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
professional-patient relationship, community pharmacy, pharmacist-patient relationship, theoretical model, patient expectations, patient perspectives, patient knowledge and beliefs, modifiable factors, pharmacy education
MeSH terms
Community Pharmacy Services, Female, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Pharmacists, Professional-Patient Relations, Quality of Health Care, Patient-Centered Care, Professional Role

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review