ArticlePharmacy practice
A naturalistic observation study of medication counseling practices at retail chain pharmacies.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing pharmaceutical consultations: Comparing pharmacy-recommended medications for minor ailments and regulatory compliance in a Latin American healthcare network.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated medication counseling procedures and trends at retail pharmacies in the Houston metropolitan area through a naturalistic observational study.
methodsA blinded cross-sectional observational study was conducted at retail pharmacies in the Houston metropolitan area. Data were collected by trained observers utilizing an observational log, to record various parameters that could have an impact on the duration of patient-pharmacist interaction in a naturalistic pharmacy practice setting. Additionally, indicators of counseling such as utilization of the counseling window and performance of show-and-tell were recorded. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests, Pearson correlations, ANOVAs, and multiple linear regressions.
resultsOne hundred and sixty-five interactions between patients and pharmacy staff were recorded at 45 retail pharmacies from 7 retail pharmacy chains. The counseling window was utilized in only 3 (1.81%) out of 165 observations and the show-and-tell process was observed in just 1(0.61%) interaction during this study. Mean (SD) interaction time between patient and pharmacists [159.50 (84.50)] was not statistically different (p>0.05) from the mean interaction time between patients and pharmacy technicians [139.30 (74.19)], irrespective of type of the retail chain observed. However, it was influenced by the number of patients waiting in queue. Patient wait time significantly differed by the time of the day the interaction was observed, weekends and weekdays had significantly different wait times and patient interaction times Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, patient interaction time, pharmacy chain type, initial contact (pharmacist/technician), and time of the day, were significantly associated with patient wait time whereas patient wait time, pharmacy chain type, number of patients in queue, and number of pharmacy technician were significantly associated with interaction time.
conclusionsOur study found that the key indicators of counseling including the use of the counseling window and the show-and-tell process were absent, suggesting lack of adequate pharmacists counseling. Further studies are needed to evaluate the validity of this conclusion and the role of pharmacy services and its value towards medication use and safety.
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.