Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35067857›Full record

ArticleThe patient2022

Will the Public Engage with New Pharmacy Roles? Assessing Future Uptake of a Community Pharmacy Health Check Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Gin Nie Chua, Christine Bond, Terry Porteous, Mandy Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Unraveling acceptance of healthcare innovations in neurorehabilitation: results from a discrete choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Gin Nie ChuaHealth Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. ginniechua@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1602-3915
Christine BondAcademic Primary Care, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0429-5208
Terry PorteousCentre for Healthcare Education Research and Innovation, Institute of Education for Medical and Dental Sciences, and Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3153-5994
Mandy RyanHealth Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6643-9129

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HERU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacists are increasingly providing more clinically orientated services that focus on enhancing patient care and health promotion. However, little is known about how acceptable this is to the public. This study explored public preferences for a community pharmacy-based health check for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

methodsA convenience sample of 423 individuals was recruited (from a community pharmacy, a dental practice, a shopping centre, a university campus and a sports centre) to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey administered face to face on a tablet. The DCE included six attributes: day of the week (weekday or weekends); way of accessing the service (walk-in and wait or by appointment); provider of health check (trainee pharmacist, pharmacist or nurse); duration of health check (30 or 45 min); follow-up phone call (no, yes and within 3 months); and cost (included to estimate the monetary value of health checks). Experimental design methods were used to create 12 choice tasks describing different health check services. Mixed logit (MXL) was used to analyse response data.

resultsRespondents had a preference for a community pharmacy-based CVD health check over no health check. They preferred a service provided (i) at the weekend; (ii) by appointment; (iii) by a nurse; (iv) for 30 min and (v) with follow-up after 3 months. Respondents were willing to pay £50 for this health check.

conclusionFindings affirm the public's acceptance and value of a pharmacy-led CVD health check. The findings can inform pharmacy-based screening services before they are introduced, guide new service design and support resource allocation decisions.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCommunity Pharmacy ServicesPharmaciesPharmacyHumansPharmacistsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35067857
PMCPMC8784214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.