Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 522–528 | Cite as

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

  • Pia FriskEmail author
  • Ulrika Bergman
  • Sofia Kälvemark-Sporrong
Research Article

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.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Interview Pharmacist Survey Sweden 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frisk P, Kälvemark-Sporrong S, Wettermark B. Selection bias in pharmacy-based patient surveys. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:128–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robson C. Real World Research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2011. ISBN 978-1-4051-82409.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sandelowski M. Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33:77–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sleath B. Pharmacist–patient relationships: authoritarian, participatory, or default? Patient Educ Couns. 1996;28:253–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cavaco AN, Romano JP. Exploring pharmacist-customer communication: the established blood pressure measurement episode. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(5):601–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bertakis KD. The influence of gender on the doctor-patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(3):356–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Apotekarsocieteten. Svensk farmaceutisk matrikel [Swedish pharmaceutical directory]. 113th ed. Stockholm: Apotekarsocieteten, Läkemedelsakademin i Stockholm AB; 2009.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–2.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pia Frisk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ulrika Bergman
    • 1
  • Sofia Kälvemark-Sporrong
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy, BMCUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations