Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring community pharmacists’ experiences of surveying patients for drug utilization research purposes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Patient self-reported data are important in drug utilization research, but often logistically difficult to collect. During 2006–2012, 72 Swedish community pharmacies regularly collected such data through structured survey interviews at the pharmacy counter, performed by the dispensing pharmacists. This study is part of a validation of that data acquisition method. Objectives (1) To explore the experiences of the pharmacists involved, (2) to explore a random or systematic exclusion of eligible patients by the pharmacists, and (3) to find areas of improvement to the applied method of surveying. Setting 72 Swedish community pharmacies, distributed all over the country. Method (a) A questionnaire was distributed to approximately 400 dispensing pharmacists at the pharmacies conducting the patient surveys; (b) semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with 19 pharmacists at 12 of the pharmacies. Main outcome measure Proportions of pharmacists reporting positive and negative experiences of structured survey interviews, the nature of their experiences, proportion of pharmacists reporting to avoid survey interviews and reasons for doing so, and suggested areas of improvement. Results A total of 126 pharmacists (32 %) completed the questionnaire. A majority (82 %) reported positive experiences of interviewing. In addition to the data generated as the primary goal of surveying, secondary benefits such as an improved patient–pharmacist dialogue and an increased detection and resolution of drug related problems were reported. However, a majority (63 %) of the pharmacists also reported negative experiences related to a perceived lack of time to fulfil one’s professional obligations. Almost half of the pharmacists (44 %) in the survey admitted that they occasionally avoided interviewing eligible patients, due to the immediate increase in work load. The limited availability of staff resources was the most apparent area of improvement. Conclusion Under certain conditions, community pharmacies are feasible as a setting for conducting patient surveys in drug utilization research, and dispensing pharmacists suitable for conducting them. When regular dispensing staff perform the survey interviews as a part of the drug dispensing process, additional resources to manage the immediate increase in work load have to be considered. Otherwise, data quality may be compromised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carvajal A, Sáinz M, Velasco V, García Ortega P, Treceño C, Martín Arias LH, et al. Emergency contraceptive pill safety profile: comparison of the results of a follow-up study to those coming from spontaneous reporting. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(1):93–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Strandell B, Norgren-Holst E, Tran N, Jakobsen HB, Chen S. OTC use of a topical nasal spray solution containing xylometazoline plus ipratropium in patients with common cold. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;47(12):744–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brusa P, Allais G, Bussone G, Rolando S, Giaccone M, Aguggia M, et al. Migraine attacks in the pharmacy: a survey in Piedmont, Italy. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(Suppl 1):5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carvajal A, Arias LH, Vega E, Sanchez JA, Rodriguez IM, Ortega PG, et al. Gastroprotection during the administration of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs: a drug utilization-study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;60(6):439–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mehuys E, Paemeleire K, Van Hees T, Christiaens T, Van Bortel LM, Van Tongelen I, et al. Self-medication of regular headache: a community pharmacy-based survey. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(8):1093–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frisk P, Kälvemark-Sporrong S, Wettermark B. Selection bias in pharmacy-based patient surveys. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:128–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Medical Products Agency. Läkemedelsverkets föreskrifter om förordnande och utlämnande av läkemedel och teknisk sprit [Medical product agency’s directives on the prescribing and distribution of pharmaceuticals and laboratory alcohol]. LVFS. 2009;13:2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tolonen H, Ahonen S, Jentoft S, Kuulasmaa K, Heldal J. Differences in participation rates and lessons learned about recruitment of participants—the European Health Examination Survey Pilot Project. Scand J Publ Health. 2015;. doi:10.1177/1403494814565692.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Knudsen AK, Hotopf M, Skogen JC, Overland S, Mykletun A. The health status of status of nonparticipants in a population-based health study: the Hordaland Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(11):1306–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nummela O, Sulander T, Helakorpi S, Haapola I, Uutela A, Heinonen H, et al. Register-based data indicated nonparticipation bias in a health study among aging people. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1418–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Robson C. Real World Research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2011. ISBN 978-1-4051-82409.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sandelowski M. Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114–6.

  15. http://www.epn.se/sv/start/bakgrundbestaemmelser/vad-ska-etikproevas/. In Swedish. Accessed 26 Jan 2015.

  16. Bradburn N, Sudman S, Wansink B. Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Wiley; 2004. ISBN 0-7879-7088-3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sporrong SK, Höglund AT, Hansson MG, Westerholm P, Arnetz B. “We are white coats whirling round”—moral distress in Swedish pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27:223–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shaheed CA, Maher CG, Williams KA, McLachlan AJ. Participation of pharmacists in clinical trial recruitment for low back pain. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:986–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morecroft CW, Mackridge AJ, Stokes EC, Gray NJ, Wilson SE, Ashcroft DM, et al. Involving community pharmacists in pharmacy practice research: experiences of peer interviewing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(1):31–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gidman WK, Hassell K, Day J, Payne K. The impact of increasing workloads and role expansion on female community pharmacists in the United Kingdom. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2007;3(3):285–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sleath B. Pharmacist–patient relationships: authoritarian, participatory, or default? Patient Educ Couns. 1996;28:253–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tully MP, Beckman-Gyllenstrand A, Bernsten CB. Factors predicting poor counselling about prescription medicines in Swedish community pharmacies. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83:3–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Olsson E, Ingman P, Ahmed B, Kälvemark Sporrong S. Pharmacist–patient communication in Swedish community pharmacies. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10(1):149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaae S, Nørgaard LS. How to engage experienced medicine users at the counter for a pharmacy-based asthma inhaler service. Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20:99–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schommer JC, Wiederholt JB. The association of prescription status, patient age, patient gender and patient question asking behaviour with the content of pharmacist-patient communication. Pharm Res. 1997;14:145–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Puumalainen II, Peura SH, Kansanaho HM, Benrimoj CSI, Airaksinen MSA. Progress in patient counselling practices in Finnish community pharmacies. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13(2):149–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ax F, Brånstad JO, Westerlund T. Pharmacy counselling models: a means to improve drug use. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35(4):439–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cavaco AN, Romano JP. Exploring pharmacist-customer communication: the established blood pressure measurement episode. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(5):601–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mott DA, Doucette WR, Pedersen CA, Schommer JC. Pharmacists’ attitudes toward worklife: results from a national survey of pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2004;44:326–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bertakis KD. The influence of gender on the doctor-patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(3):356–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schieber AC, Delpierre C, Lepage B, Afrite A, Pascal J, Cases C, INTERMEDE Group, et al. Do gender differences affect the doctor–patient interaction during consultations in general practice? Results from the INTERMEDE study. Fam Pract. 2014;31(6):706–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Apotekarsocieteten. Svensk farmaceutisk matrikel [Swedish pharmaceutical directory]. 113th ed. Stockholm: Apotekarsocieteten, Läkemedelsakademin i Stockholm AB; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the pharmacists who contributed to this study.

Funding

This study was partly funded by the Swedish Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

Authors Pia Frisk and Sofia Kälvemark-Sporrong were formerly employed by the National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, BMC, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 580, 751 23, Uppsala, Sweden

    Pia Frisk & Ulrika Bergman

  2. Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Sofia Kälvemark-Sporrong

Authors
  1. Pia Frisk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrika Bergman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sofia Kälvemark-Sporrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pia Frisk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frisk, P., Bergman, U. & Kälvemark-Sporrong, S. Exploring community pharmacists’ experiences of surveying patients for drug utilization research purposes. Int J Clin Pharm 37, 522–528 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0088-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0088-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation