Mapping the concept of health care integration: A lexicographic analysis of scientific literature.

BACKGROUND: Systems fragmentation is a major challenge for an efficient organization, integration being a potential solution also proposed in health care field, including pharmacy as a player. However, the use of different terms and definitions in the literature hinders the comparison of different integration initiatives. OBJECTIVE: To identify and map the terms used in scientific literature regarding integration in health care and to characterize each emerging topic. METHODS: A lexicographic analysis of the integration of healthcare systems literature indexed in PubMed was conducted. Ten different systematic searches, four using only Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and six using text words, were conducted in March 2023. Journal scattering was analyzed following Bradford's distribution using the Leimkuhler model. An overall text corpus was created with titles and abstracts of all the records retrieved. The corpus was lemmatized, and the most used bigrams were tokenized as single strings. To perform a topic modeling, the lemmatized corpus text was analyzed using IRaMuTeQ, producing descending hierarchic classification and a correspondence analysis. The 50 words with higher chi-square statistics in each class were considered as representative of the class. RESULTS: A total of 42,479 articles published from 1943 to 2023 in 4469 different journals were retrieved. The MeSH "Delivery of Health Care, Integrated", created in the 1996 MeSH update, was the most productive retrieving 33.7 % of the total articles but also retrieving 22.6 % of articles not retrieved in any other search. The text word "Integration" appeared in 15,357 (36.2 %) records. The lexicographic analysis resulted in 7 classes, named as: Evidence and implementation, Quantitative research, Professional education, Qualitative research, Governance and leadership, Clinical research, and Financial resources. Association between the classes and the searches or the text-words used ranged from moderate to weak demonstrating the lack of a standard pattern of use of terms in literature regarding healthcare integration. CONCLUSIONS: The term "integration" and the MeSH "Delivery of Health Care, Integrated" are the most used to represent the concept of integration in healthcare and should be the preferred terms in the literature.

Community pharmacy & primary care integration: qualitative study on stakeholders' opinions and interventions.

Background: Health systems worldwide are under pressure. Integration seems a possible solution to improve healthcare systems efficiency. This research aims to gather stakeholders' opinions on integrating community pharmacy and the primary healthcare system and secondly to explore and prioritise interventions for an initial integration plan. Method: Using a constructivist qualitative research approach, a two-phase qualitative study was conducted in the Basque Country, Spain. Thematic analysis using NVivo® was undertaken on data gathered during focus groups and semi-structured interviews (phase 1). During phase 2, a nominal group prioritised potential integration interventions identified in phase 1. Results: The study amalgamated findings from four focus groups and nine interviews, revealing six themes. Stakeholders had a diverse understanding of integration, associating the term mainly with collaboration, communication or cooperation. Community pharmacies were positively perceived; however, their commercial and privately owned nature was of concern. Remuneration methods for pharmacists were controversial, with a suggested shift to service-based remuneration. Information availability and barriers such as interprofessional communication gaps were highlighted. The nominal group prioritised, according to importance and feasibility, bidirectional communication development, coordination in using interprofessional protocols and community pharmacist participation in primary healthcare centre meetings as interventions for integrating community pharmacies and primary healthcare centres. Conclusion: Based on the opinions of stakeholders, three interventions are proposed to initiate the integration process of community pharmacy and primary care. The implementation of these interventions will need to be negotiated with the relevant authorities and evaluated.

Community pharmacy and primary health care - Types of integration and their applicability: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for health care systems to be more efficient and efficacious. An approach to integrate public and private provider organizations such as community pharmacies and public primary health care (PHC) merits consideration. The objective of this review was to identify the types of integration in health care settings and discuss their applicability to the potential integration of community pharmacy and PHC. METHODS: A narrative review using Medline, Scopus and SciELO databases was performed in which terms related to health were combined with terms related to integration. Levels and Types of integration: 14 types of integration were identified (two in breadth, seven as enablers and five in system levels). A model was created which classifies and assigns the types of integration to the different levels of the health system and to the breadth, intensity, and enablers of the integration process. Due to the nature of community pharmacy and PHC system, a horizontal integration at the micro level, supported by meso and macro levels policy, is suggested. The different elements of intensity and enablers can significantly influence the process. CONCLUSION: The application of principles, concepts and types of integration suggest that it might be feasible and practical to integrate community pharmacies and PHC. However, the conflictive historical context would need to be overcome with appropriate policy and incentives.

Integration of community pharmacy in primary health care: The challenge.

Community pharmacies and pharmacists predominantly operate in a retail environment independently of other health care providers, and they are not often viewed as an integral member of the healthcare team. Thus, they remain overlooked or excluded during integration processes of health care systems. At the same time, there are calls by the profession at national and international levels for community pharmacy to be integrated within primary care systems. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have further stimulated this desire. When pressing for integration, various terms, such as integration, integrated care, or interprofessional collaboration, are used in an interchangeable manner leading to lack of clarity, ambiguity and confusion for health care policy makers, planners, and other healthcare professionals. The literature was reviewed to identify critical components for community pharmacy to consider for integration. From the five selected articles describing integration of community pharmacies, four different constructs were identified: consensus, connectivity, communication and trust. The integration of community pharmacy into the health system may translate into better access for patients to primary care services, contribute to cost effectiveness, and promulgate the sustainability of the system. However significant political, economic, social, and practice change would be required by all stakeholders. Further research is needed to underpin a consensus for a definition, the type of integration, and the model optimally suited to integrate community pharmacy into primary care. These models, specific and adaptable to each national health care system and political environment, would need to be consensus-based by principal stakeholders to overcome a variety of barriers, including government resistance. Mere calls or demands by the pharmaceutical profession, although laudable, will not be sufficient to overcome the historical, cultural, and economic challenges.