Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33451045›Full record

ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2021

National Pharmacist Workforce Study (NPWS): Description of 2019 Survey Methods and Assessment of Nonresponse Bias.

Matthew J Witry, Vibhuti Arya, Brianne K Bakken, Caroline A Gaither, David H Kreling, David A Mott, Jon C Schommer, William R Doucette

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Navigating power dynamics between pharmacy preceptors and learners.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024
    Article
  5. Exploring the pharmacy students' perspectives on off-campus online learning experiences amid COVID-19 crises: A cross-sectional survey.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matthew J WitryCollege of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8381-7224
Vibhuti AryaCollege of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7820-2030
Brianne K BakkenPharmacy School, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Caroline A GaitherCollege of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
David H KrelingSchool of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
David A MottSchool of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53705, USA.
Jon C SchommerCollege of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
William R DoucetteCollege of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Funding

Pharmacy Workforce Center none
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National Pharmacist Workforce Studies (NPWS) have been conducted in the U.S. every five years since 2000. This article describes the online survey methods used for the latest NPWS conducted in 2019 and provides an assessment for nonresponse bias. Three waves of emails containing a link to the online survey were sent to a random sample of about 96,000 pharmacists licensed in the United States. The survey asked about pharmacist employment, work activities, work-life balance, practice characteristics, pharmacist demographics and training. A total of 5467 usable responses were received, for a usable response rate of 5.8%. To assess for nonresponse bias, respondent characteristics were compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and a benchmark, while a wave analysis compared early and late respondents. The pharmacist sample-population comparison and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents had a higher percentage of female pharmacists and a lower proportion of young pharmacists compared to the population of U.S. pharmacists and the benchmark sample. In some contrast, the wave analysis showed that the early respondents had a higher percentage of males and older pharmacists compared to the late respondents. Both the wave analysis and the benchmark comparison showed that the NPWS respondents (and early respondents) had a lower percent of pharmacists with a PharmD degree than did the late respondents and the benchmark group. These differences should be considered when interpreting the findings from the 2019 NPWS.

Indexed as

nonresponse biaspharmacistsurveyworkforce

Identifiers

PMID33451045
PMCPMC7838781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.