International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 182–191 | Cite as

A conceptual framework of patient satisfaction with a pharmacy adherence service

  • Melandi van den Berg
  • Parastou DonyaiEmail author
Research Article


Background Patients do not adhere to their medicines for a host of reasons which can include their underlying beliefs as well as the quality of their interactions with healthcare professionals. One way of measuring the outcome of pharmacy adherence services is to assess patient satisfaction but no questionnaire exists that truly captures patients’ experiences with these relatively new services. Objective Our objective was to develop a conceptual framework specific to patient satisfaction with a community pharmacy adherence service based on criteria used by patients themselves. Setting The study was based in community pharmacies in one large geographical area of the UK (Surrey). All the work was conducted between October 2008 and September 2010. Methods This study involved qualitative non-participant observation and semi-structured interviewing. We observed the recruitment of patients to the medicines use review (MUR) service and also actual MUR consultations (7). We also interviewed patients (15). Data collection continued until no new themes were identified during analysis. We analysed interviews to firstly create a comprehensive account of themes which had significance within the transcripts, then created sub-themes within super-ordinate categories. We used a structure-process-outcome approach to develop a conceptual framework relating to patient satisfaction with the MUR. Favourable ethical opinion for this study was received from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2nd June 2008. Results Five super-ordinate themes linked to patient satisfaction with the MUR service were identified, including relationships with healthcare providers; attitudes towards healthcare providers; patients’ experience of health, healthcare and medicines; patients’ views of the MUR service; the logistics of the MUR service. In the conceptual framework, structure was conceptualised as existing relationships, environment, and time; process was conceptualised as related to recruitment and consultation stages; and outcome as two concepts of immediate patient outcomes and satisfaction on reflection. Conclusion We identified and highlighted factors that can influence patient satisfaction with the MUR service and this led to the development of a conceptual framework of patient satisfaction with the MUR service. This can form the basis for developing a questionnaire for measuring patient satisfaction with this and similar pharmacy adherence services.


Community pharmacy Conceptual framework Medication adherence Medicines use Patient satisfaction Review 



The authors are grateful to Kingston University, Boots UK, the Harold and Marjorie Moss Charitable Trust Fund and Morecon Ltd for their support. The authors would like to thank the patients and pharmacists who took part in the study.


Funding was received from the Harold and Marjorie Moss Charitable Trust Fund for patient interviews and additionally from Morecon Ltd for purchasing software and equipment used in the transcribing of the interviews. Kingston University and Boots UK jointly funded the PhD of one of the authors (MvdB).

Conflicts of interest

The observations and interviews took place in a community pharmacy chain which employs one of the authors (MvdB) as a teacher practitioner.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: Chronic diseases. Website of the World Health Organisation [Online]. (2013). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  2. 2.
    Haynes RB, McDonald HP, Garg AX. Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;288(22):2880–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization: Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. Geneva: WHO; 2003. ISBN: 9241545992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, et al. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40(9):794–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sokol MC, McGuigan KA, Verbrugge RR, Epstein RS. Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost. Med Care. 2005;43(6):521–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee: NHS community pharmacy contractual framework advanced service—medicines use review and prescription intervention service [Online]. Available at: (2013). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  8. 8.
    Clyde W, Blenkinsopp A, Seal R. A guide to medication review. National prescribing centre. [Online]. Available at: (2008). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  9. 9.
    Lee E, Braund R, Tordoff J. Examining the first year of Medicines Use Review services provided by pharmacists in New Zealand: 2008. N Z Med J. 2009;122(1293):3566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pellegrino AN, Martin MT, Tilton JJ, Touchette DR. Medication therapy management services: definitions and outcomes. Drugs. 2009;69(4):393–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benrimoj SI, Roberts AS. Providing patient care in community pharmacies in Australia. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(11):1911–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montgomery AT, Lindblad AK, Eddby P, Söderlund E, Tully MP, Sporrong SK. Counselling behaviour and content in a pharmaceutical care service in Swedish community pharmacies. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(4):455–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donyai P. Social and cognitive pharmacy: theory and case studies. Pharmaceutical Press: London; 2012. ISBN-13: 9780853698999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Department of Health: Pharmacy in England building on strengths—delivering the future [Online]. ISBN-13: 9780101734127. Available at: (2008). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  15. 15.
    Ley P. Improving patients’ understanding, recall, satisfaction and compliance. In: Broome AK, editor. Health psychology: process and application. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989. ISBN-13: 9780412551208.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aharony L, Strasser S. Patient satisfaction: what we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Res Rev. 1993;50(1):49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crosby LA, Evans KR, Cowles D. Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. J Mark. 1990;54:68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crow R, Gage H, Hapson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(32):1–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Hays RD. The structure of satisfaction with pharmacy services. Med Care. 1998;36(2):244–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Locker D, Dunt D. Theoretical and methodological issues in sociological studies of consumer satisfaction with medical care. Soc Sci Med. 1978;12(4A):283–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Panvelkar PN, Saini B, Armour C. Measurement of patient satisfaction with community pharmacy services: a review. Pharm World Sci. 2009;31(5):525–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plan. 1983;6(3–4):185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schommer JC, Kucukarslan SN. Measuring patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical services. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1997;54(23):2721–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, and Stewart AL. The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction: a review of literature [Online]. Available at: (1977). Accessed 22 June 2012.
  25. 25.
    Marshall GN, Hays RD. The patient satisfaction questionnaire short-form (PSQ-18) [Online]. Available at: (1994). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  26. 26.
    RAND Health: Patient satisfaction questionnaire from RAND Health [Online]. Available at: (2011). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  27. 27.
    MacKeigan LD, Larson LN. Development and validation of an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with pharmacy services. Med Care. 1989;27(5):522–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larson LN, MacKeigan LD. Further validation of an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with pharmacy services. J Pharm Mark Manage. 1994;8(1):125–39.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larson LN, Rovers JP, MacKeigan LD. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2002;42(1):44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Armando PD, Martínez Pérez SR, Pallarés MM, Solá Uthurry NH. Development and validation of a Spanish language patient satisfaction questionnaire with drug dispensing. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:169–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Traverso ML, Salamano M, Botta C, Colautti M, Palchik V, Pérez B. Questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care in Spanish language. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(4):217–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: medicines use review—patient survey [online]. Available at: (2009). Accessed 23 March 2010.
  33. 33.
    National Pharmacy Association and Primary Care Pharmacists Association: MUR support and evaluation programme [Online]. Available at: (2010). Accessed 29 May 2013.
  34. 34.
    Stewart DC, George J, Bond CM, Cunningham ITS, Diack HL, McCaig DJ. Exploring patients’ perspectives of pharmacist supplementary prescribing in Scotland. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(6):892–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tinelli M, Bond C, Blenkinsopp A, Jaffray M, Watson M, Hannaford P. Patient evaluation of a community pharmacy medications management service. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(12):1962–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van den Berg M, Donyai P. How was patient empowerment portrayed in information leaflets describing the community pharmacy medicines use review service in the UK? Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):274–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;83(4):691–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith JA, Osborn M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith JA, editor. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008. pp. 53–80. ISBN-13:9781412930840.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith JA, Jarman M,Osborn M. Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Murray M, Chamberlain K, editors. Qualitative health psychology: theories and methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1999. pp. 218–240. ISBN-13: 9780761956617.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality of care. Inquiry. 1988;25:25–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Latif A, Pollock K, Boardman HF. The contribution of the medicines use review (MUR) consultation to counseling practice in community pharmacies. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(3):336–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kingston UniversityKingston upon ThamesUK
  2. 2.Boots UKNottinghamUK
  3. 3.Reading School of PharmacyUniversity of ReadingReading, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations