Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35031027›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2022

Do pharmacy practice standards effectively describe behaviour? Reviewing practice standards using a behavioural specificity framework.

Deanna Mill, Amy Page, Jacinta Johnson, Kenneth Lee, Sandra M Salter, Liza Seubert, Rhonda Clifford, Danielle D'Lima

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Deanna MillSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Deanna.Mill@research.uwa.edu.au.
Amy PageSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Jacinta JohnsonUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Kenneth LeeSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Sandra M SalterSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Liza SeubertSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Rhonda CliffordSchool of Allied Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Danielle D'LimaCentre for Behaviour Change, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
University of Western Australia · AUMonash University · AUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines and practice standards exist to communicate the conduct and behaviour expected of health care professionals and ensure consistent quality practice. It is important that they describe behaviours explicitly so they can be interpreted, enacted and measured with ease. The AACTT framework specifies behaviour in terms of the: Action to be performed, Actor who performs the action, Context where the action occurs, Target who the action is performed with/for and Time when the action is performed (AACTT). It provides the most up to date framework for specifying behaviours and is particularly relevant to complex behavioural problems that involve sequences of behaviours performed by different people. Behavioural specificity within pharmacy practice standards has not been explored.

aimTo determine if behaviours described in the Professional Practice Standards for Australian Pharmacists specify Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time.

methodsTwo researchers independently reviewed the scope and structure of the practice standards and one extracted action statements (behaviours) verbatim. Through an iterative process, the researchers modified and developed the existing AACTT definitions to operationalise them for application to review of the action statements in the practice standards. The operational definitions, decision criteria and curated examples were combined in a codebook. The definitions were consistently applied through a directed content analysis approach to evaluate all extracted action statements by one researcher. For consistency 20% was independently checked for agreement by a second researcher.

resultsA novel codebook to apply AACTT criteria to evaluate practice standards was developed. Application of this codebook identified 768 independent behaviours. Of these, 300 (39%) described at least one discrete observable action, none specified an actor, 25 (3%) specified context, 131 (17%) specified target and 88 (11%) specified time. CONCLUSION(S): The behaviours detailed in practice standards for Australian pharmacists do not consistently specify behaviours in terms of Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time. Developers in the pharmacy profession, and beyond, should consider the behavioural specificity of their documents to improve interpretability, usability and adherence to the behaviours detailed. This also has implications for the development and evaluation of interventions to change such behaviours and improve quality of care.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical ServicesPharmaciesPharmacyAustraliaHumansPharmacistsBehavioural specificationPharmacistPractice standardsProfessional behaviour

Identifiers

PMID35031027
PMCPMC8760715
OpenAlexW4205229614

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.