Skip to main content
Log in

Gap between patient expectation and perception during pharmacist–patient communication at community pharmacy

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

A Correction to this article was published on 16 August 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background Assessing and satisfying patient expectation are essential in successful patient-centered communication. Recognizing the gap between patient expectation and perception during pharmacist–patient communication can help to identify communication problems and suggest ways to improve communication. Objective To evaluate the gap between patient expectation and perception of sharing information and communications skills during pharmacist–patient communication. Setting Community pharmacies in South Korea. Method A questionnaire was developed to collect expectation and perception of sharing information and communication skills. Items for sharing information included drug effect, dosage/route of administration, adverse drug reactions, storage, drug–drug interactions, drug–food interactions, managing a missed dose or overdose, co-medication, and past drug allergies. Communication skills included friendliness, expertise, easy language, emphasis on main content, confirmation of understanding, enough time, calm environment, and private space. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 500 convenience sample using an online or written questionnaire in May 2018. Responses about patient expectation and perception were scored using 4-point Likert scales. Gap between patient expectation and perception was calculated as the differences among 4-point Likert scores. Factors associated with patient expectation and gap scores were evaluated using a multivariable regression method. Main outcome measure Patient expectation and perception of sharing information, as well as perception of communication skills during pharmacist–patient communication (questionnaire consisting 35 items). Results This study analyzed responses of 460 participants who answered all items on the questionnaire. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they want to share information with pharmacists. All items had significant gap between patient expectation and perception (p < 0.01). Gap scores were highest for adverse drug reaction, drug–drug interaction, and past drug allergies (all, median 2). Gap scores were negatively associated with age 50–59 years, ≥ 60 years, and presence of ≥ 1 chronic illness. Patient perception of communication skills, especially regarding private space, were poor. Conclusions The information shared with pharmacists was significantly less than that expected by participants, and most pharmacist communication skills were evaluated as poor. Understanding the expectation of each patient and communicating accordingly with appropriate communication skills are necessary to improve patient-centered communication in community pharmacies.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 16 August 2020

    In the original publication of the article the order of authors has been interchanged and now the same has been provided correctly in this correction.

References

  1. Kerr A, Strawbridge J, Kelleher C, Mertens F, Pype P, Deveugele M, et al. How can pharmacists develop patient–pharmacist communication skills? A realist review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(9):796–804.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thamby SA, Subramani P. Seven-star pharmacist concept of WHO. J Young Pharm. 2014;6(2):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Murad MS, Chatterley T, Guirguis LM. A meta-narrative review of recorded patient–pharmacist interactions: exploring biomedical or patient-centered communication? Res Soc Adm Pharm RSAP. 2014;10(1):1–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Naughton CA. Patient-centered communication. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018;6(1):13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wolters M, van Hulten R, Blom L, Bouvy ML. Exploring the concept of patient centred communication for the pharmacy practice. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(6):1145–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Perrault EK, Beal JL. The effect of pharmacy setting and pharmacist communication style on patient perceptions and selection of pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc. (2013). 2018;58(4):404–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borgsteede SD, Karapinar-Carkit F, Hoffmann E, Zoer J, van den Bemt PM. Information needs about medication according to patients discharged from a general hospital. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(1):22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kazaryan I, Sevikyan A. Patients in need of medicine information. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2015;27(Suppl 1):S21–S2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horne R, Hankins M, Jenkins R. The satisfaction with information about medicines scale (SIMS): a new measurement tool for audit and research. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(3):135–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kayyali R, Gomes AM, Mason T, Naik M. patients perceptions of medication counselling from community pharmacies. Pharm Pharmacol Int J. 2016;4(2):00071.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gültekin O, Abdi AM, Al-Baghdadi H, Akansoy M, Rasmussen F, Başgut B. Counseling of inhalation medicine perceived by patients and their healthcare providers: insights from North Cyprus. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41(5):1272–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (2016). https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=40196&lang=ENG;2017. Accessed 15 Sep 2019.

  14. Lee JH, Sohn HS, Shin HT. Quality evaluation of medication counseling in Korean community pharmacies. Korean J Clin Pharm. 2009;19(2):131–45.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gregorio J, Cavaco AM, Lapao LV. How to best manage time interaction with patients? Community pharmacist workload and service provision analysis. Res Soc Adm Pharm RSAP. 2017;13(1):133–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Park J, Jung M. A note on determination of sample size for a Likert scale. Commun Korean Stat Soc. 2009;16(4):669–73.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Parasuraman A, Ziethaml V, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail. 1985;62(1):12–40.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mohammadi A, Shoghli A. Survey on quality of primary health cares in Zanjan district health centers. J Zanjan Univ Med Sci. 2009;16(65):89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Abolghasem Gorji H, Tabatabaei SM, Akbari A, Sarkhosh S, Khorasan S. Using the service quality gap's model (SERVQUAL) in Imam Khomeini teaching hospital. J Health Adm. 2013;16(51):7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mohebifar R, Hasani H, Barikani A, Rafiei S. Evaluating service quality from patients' perceptions: application of importance-performance analysis method. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2016;7(4):233–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fryar CD, Ostchega Y, Hales CM, Zhang G, Kruszon-Moran D. Hypertension prevalence and control among adults: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;289. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db289.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2020.

  22. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National diabetes statistics report. 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2020.

  23. Takaki H, Abe T, Hagihara A. Perceptions of pharmacists and patients on information provision and their influence on patient satisfaction in Japanese community pharmacies. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hattingh HL, Emmerton L, Ng Cheong Tin P, Green C. Utilization of community pharmacy space to enhance privacy: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2016;19(5):1098–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rapport F, Doel MA, Jerzembek GS. "Convenient space" or "a tight squeeze": insider views on the community pharmacy. Health Place. 2009;15(1):315–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson L, Bidwell S. Space, time, and emotion in the community pharmacy. Health Place. 2015;34:251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Statistics Korea. Population by age and sex 2016. https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1IN1603;2017. Accessed 14 Sep 2019.

  28. Statistics Korea. Population by region and population density 2019. https://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1007. Accessed 11 Jan 2020.

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Myeong Gyu Kim analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. Na Eun Lee developed a questionnaire and carried out the survey. Hyun Soon Sohn developed a questionnaire, conceived and planned the experiments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyun Soon Sohn.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, M.G., Lee, N.E. & Sohn, H.S. Gap between patient expectation and perception during pharmacist–patient communication at community pharmacy. Int J Clin Pharm 42, 677–684 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01014-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01014-3

Keywords

Navigation