ArticleBMJ open2017
Mystery shopping and coaching as a form of audit and feedback to improve community pharmacy management of non-prescription medicine requests: an intervention study.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulated patient methodology applied in health services research: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Rethinking assessment for practice readiness: policy implications of the OSCE-practice mismatch in Malaysia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Medication Recommendation, Counseling, and Pricing for Nasal Sprays in German Community Pharmacies: A Simulated Patient Investigation.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- A qualitative non-participant observational study of non-prescription counseling in community pharmacies.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Simulated patient methodology as a "gold standard" in community pharmacy practice: Response to criticism.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Assessment of the operation status of electronic prescription at community pharmacies in Chengdu, China: a simulated patient study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Evaluation of pharmacist's practices regarding the antimicrobials dispensing: a simulated patient study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The Quality of Counseling for Headache OTC Medications in German Community Pharmacies Using a Simulated Patient Approach: Are There Differences between Self-Purchase and Purchase for a Third Party?TheScientificWorldJournal · 2022Article
- Article
- Allergic rhinitis self-care advice in community pharmacies: A simulated patient study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2021Article
- A Nationwide Mystery Caller Evaluation of Oral Emergency Contraception Practices from German Community Pharmacies: An Observational Study Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- History taking and response to an adult diarrheal case among community drug retail outlets in Gondar town, north-west Ethiopia: a simulated-client survey.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- The Quality of Counselling for Oral Emergency Contraceptive Pills-A Simulated Patient Study in German Community Pharmacies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- The Quality of Advice Provided by Pharmacists to Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Mystery Shopper Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Ethical considerations for mystery shopper studies of pharmaceutical sales.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Article
- Factors impeding the supply of over-the-counter medications according to evidence-based practice: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Assessment of patient counselling on the common cold treatment at Slovak community pharmacies using mystery shopping.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2019Article
- A simulated patient evaluation of pharmacist's performance in a men's mental health program.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether repeated mystery shopping visits with feedback improve pharmacy performance over nine visits and to determine what factors predict an appropriate outcome.
designProspective, parallel, repeated intervention, repeated measures mystery shopping (pseudopatient) design.
settingThirty-six community pharmacies in metropolitan Sydney, Australia in March-October 2015.
participantsSixty-one University of Sydney pharmacy undergraduates acted as mystery shoppers. Students enrolled in their third year of Bachelor of Pharmacy in 2015 were eligible to participate. Any community pharmacy in the Sydney metropolitan region was eligible to take part and was selected through convenience sampling.
interventionRepeated mystery shopping with immediate feedback and coaching. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome for each given scenario (appropriate or not) and questioning scores for each interaction.
resultsFive hundred and twenty-one visits were analysed, of which 54% resulted in an appropriate outcome. Questioning scores and the proportion of interactions resulting in an appropriate outcome significantly improved over time (P<0.001). Involvement of pharmacists, visit number, increased questioning score and the prescribed scenario were predictors of an appropriate outcome (P=0.008, P=0.022, P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). Interactions involving a pharmacist had greater scores than those without (P<0.001).
conclusionsRepeated mystery shopping visits with feedback were associated with improved pharmacy performance over time. Future work should focus on the role of non-pharmacist staff and design interventions accordingly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.