Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1242–1249 | Cite as

Validation of the Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index for physicians in Malaysia

  • Renukha Sellappans
  • Chirk Jenn Ng
  • Pauline Siew Mei LaiEmail author
Research Article
  • 218 Downloads

Abstract

Background Establishing a collaborative working relationship between doctors and pharmacists is essential for the effective provision of pharmaceutical care. The Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index (PPCI) was developed to assess the professional exchanges between doctors and pharmacists. Two versions of the PPCI was developed: one for physicians and one for pharmacists. However, these instruments have not been validated in Malaysia. Objective To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia. Setting An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Methods This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a “collaborator” or a “non-collaborator”. Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later. Main outcome measure Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test–retest) of the PPCI for physicians. Results A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. “Collaborators” had significantly higher scores compared to “non-collaborators” (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test–retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752. Conclusion The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors’ views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.

Keywords

Collaboration Hospitals Interprofessional relations Malaysia Pharmacists Physicians 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation to all the participants for agreeing to spend time participating in this study despite their busy schedule. Many thanks to the pharmacists who helped us in identifying the doctors who were in collaboration with them. Finally, we would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Karuthan Chinna from the University of Malaya who provided assistance in data analysis and interpretation.

Funding

This study was funded by University of Malaya Postgraduate Research Grant PV018/2012A.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

11096_2015_200_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdelhamid E, Awad A, Gismallah A. Evaluation of a hospital pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care services for asthma patients. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2008;6(1):25–32.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chisholm MA, Mulloy LL, Jagadeesan M, Martin BC, DiPiro JT. Effect of clinical pharmacy services on the blood pressure of African-American renal transplant patients. Ethn Dis. 2002;12(3):392–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung WW, Chua SS, Lai PS, Chan SP. Effects of a pharmaceutical care model on medication adherence and glycemic control of people with type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer Adher. 2014;8:1185–94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in heart failure events by the addition of a clinical pharmacist to the heart failure management team: results of the Pharmacist in Heart Failure Assessment Recommendation and Monitoring (PHARM) Study. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(16):1939–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader KE, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):428–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor CT, Byrd DC, Krueger K. Improving primary care in rural Alabama with a pharmacy initiative. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(11):1123–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmader KE, Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Sloane R, Ruby CM, Twersky J, et al. Effects of geriatric evaluation and management on adverse drug reactions and suboptimal prescribing in the frail elderly. Am J Med. 2004;116(6):394–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams ME, Pulliam CC, Hunter R, Johnson TM, Owens JE, Kincaid J, et al. The short-term effect of interdisciplinary medication review on function and cost in ambulatory elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(1):93–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doucette WR, Nevins J, McDonough RP. Factors affecting collaborative care between pharmacists and physicians. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2005;1(4):565–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makowsky MJ, Madill HM, Schindel TJ, Tsuyuki RT. Physician perspectives on collaborative working relationships with team-based hospital pharmacists in the inpatient medicine setting. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;21(2):123–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Snyder ME, Zillich AJ, Primack BA, Rice KR, Somma McGivney MA, Pringle JL, et al. Exploring successful community pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationships using mixed methods. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2010;6(4):307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDonough RP, Doucette WR. Dynamics of pharmaceutical care: developing collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and physicians. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2001;41(5):682–92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zillich AJ, McDonough RP, Carter BL, Doucette WR. Influential characteristics of physician/pharmacist collaborative relationships. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):764–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zillich AJ, Doucette WR, Carter BL, Kreiter CD. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physician–pharmacist collaboration from the physician perspective. Value Health. 2005;8(1):59–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zillich AJ, Milchak JL, Carter BL, Doucette WR. Utility of a questionnaire to measure physician–pharmacist collaborative relationships. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2006;46(4):453–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grim GL, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. p. 99–136. ISBN 9781557982735.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;10(2):486–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaiser H. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35(4):401–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2005. ISBN 9780130329295.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J. Stastical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1988. ISBN 9780805802832.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistic. 5th ed. Boston: Ally & Bacon; 2007. ISBN 9780205459384.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renukha Sellappans
    • 1
  • Chirk Jenn Ng
    • 1
  • Pauline Siew Mei Lai
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Primary Care Medicine, University Malaya Primary Care Research Group (UMPCRG), Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations