ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2023
Beyond satisfaction in person-centered pharmacy services.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient health outcomes for evaluation of pharmacist-led primary care: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Identifying and measuring important outcomes for evaluating the impact of pharmacist prescribing in Ireland: A modified Delphi study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Patient experience in community pharmacy services: A scoping review.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Review
- Enhancing patient care: pharmacotherapeutic monitoring in community pharmacies - a literature review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Barriers to person-centered service design in pharmacy practice: examples, lessons, and potential solutions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient self-reported satisfaction is commonly used as an assessment of service experience and quality for community pharmacy services. This commentary discusses alternative foundational approaches to evaluating service experience and quality in patient-centered care. It describes historical and recent literature pertaining to the development and use of satisfaction measures for service design and patient experience assessment. It then highlights potential limitations of patient satisfaction as an assessment tool for patient-centeredness and patient experience identified in the pharmacy literature, which include criticisms that use of patient satisfaction may compromise accuracy in measuring quality due to factors such as patients having poor knowledge of and low expectations for quality and having a predisposition toward rating satisfaction highly when experiencing no-cost and/or unfamiliar services. Moreover, satisfaction measurements may change based on service exposure, with patient preferences for service offerings changing with increased service exposure and variation in patient-specific and environmental factors. After discussing limitations and criticism of patient self-reported satisfaction, we introduce alternative assessments methods which may facilitate more accurate assessments of patient experience and patient-centered pharmacy services such as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and human-centered design techniques such as journey mapping, prototyping, and user testing to design and assess patient-centered pharmacy services. These alternative assessments are rooted in, or related to preferred implementation science approaches to establishing, evaluating, and sustaining pharmacy services.
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.