ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015
Exploring community pharmacists' experiences of surveying patients for drug utilization research purposes.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of factors affecting the engagement of pharmacists with the organization working in public health facilities: a quantitative study in Vietnam.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient self-reported data are important in drug utilization research, but often logistically difficult to collect. During 2006-2012, 72 Swedish community pharmacies regularly collected such data through structured survey interviews at the pharmacy counter, performed by the dispensing pharmacists. This study is part of a validation of that data acquisition method.
objectives(1) To explore the experiences of the pharmacists involved, (2) to explore a random or systematic exclusion of eligible patients by the pharmacists, and (3) to find areas of improvement to the applied method of surveying.
setting72 Swedish community pharmacies, distributed all over the country.
method(a) A questionnaire was distributed to approximately 400 dispensing pharmacists at the pharmacies conducting the patient surveys; (b) semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with 19 pharmacists at 12 of the pharmacies.
main outcome measureProportions of pharmacists reporting positive and negative experiences of structured survey interviews, the nature of their experiences, proportion of pharmacists reporting to avoid survey interviews and reasons for doing so, and suggested areas of improvement.
resultsA total of 126 pharmacists (32 %) completed the questionnaire. A majority (82 %) reported positive experiences of interviewing. In addition to the data generated as the primary goal of surveying, secondary benefits such as an improved patient-pharmacist dialogue and an increased detection and resolution of drug related problems were reported. However, a majority (63 %) of the pharmacists also reported negative experiences related to a perceived lack of time to fulfil one's professional obligations. Almost half of the pharmacists (44 %) in the survey admitted that they occasionally avoided interviewing eligible patients, due to the immediate increase in work load. The limited availability of staff resources was the most apparent area of improvement.
conclusionUnder certain conditions, community pharmacies are feasible as a setting for conducting patient surveys in drug utilization research, and dispensing pharmacists suitable for conducting them. When regular dispensing staff perform the survey interviews as a part of the drug dispensing process, additional resources to manage the immediate increase in work load have to be considered. Otherwise, data quality may be compromised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25736386What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.