Skip to main content
Log in

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

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

Abstract

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bradley HA. Roles and competencies of district pharmacists: a case study from Cape Town. PhD thesis. 2013. http://hdl.handle.net/11394/3255. Viewed 15 Nov 2015.

  2. Coghlan D, Brannick T. Doing action research in your own organization. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fals-Borda O. Participatory (action) research in social theory: origins and challenges. In: Reason P, Bradbury H, editors. Handbook of action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. pp. 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hard E, Bond B. Action research for health and social care. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW. Drug-related problems in patients with angina pectoris, type 2 diabetes and asthma—interviewing patients at home. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28:239–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW. Workshop IV: Developing participatory action research in pharmaceutical care. In: 4th international working conference on pharmaceutical care research—beyond the pharmacy perspective, Hillerød, Feb 2005. Workshop leadership and lectures. 2006b.

  7. Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW, Gundersen B, Lorentzen L, Petersen KH. Basing pharmacy counselling on the perspective of the angina pectoris patient. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24(2):71–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haugbølle LS, Sørensen EW, Henriksen HH. Medication- and illness-related factual knowledge, perceptions and behaviour in angina pectoris patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:281–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Sirett E, Wong G, Cargo M, Herbert CP, Seifer SD, Green LW, Greenhalgh T. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lalonde L, Goudreau J, Hudson E, Lussier MT, Bareil C, Duhamel F, Levesque L, Turcotte A, Lalonde G. Development of an inter-professional program for cardiovascular prevention in primary care: a participatory research approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Open Medicine; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Launsø L. The demands for qualitative research are developing. J Soc Adm Pharm. 1991;8(1):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Launsø L, Rieper O. Forskning om og med mennesker—forskningstyper og forskningsmetoder i samfundsforskning (Research about and with people—research types and research methods in social science). Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck; 2005.

  13. Meyer J. Using qualitative methods in health related AR. BMJ. 2000;320:178–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mclaughlin CP, Kaluzny AD. Continuous quality improvement in health care. Gaitersburg: An Aspen Publication; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nørgaard LS, Sørensen EW. Action research in pharmacy practice. In: Zaheer-Ud-Din B, editor. Pharmacy practice research methods. Berlin: Springer; 2015. pp. 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rudolph AE, Standish K, Amesty S, Crawford ND, Stern RJ, Badillo WE, Boyer A, Brown D, Ranger N, Orduna JM, Lasenburg L, Lippek S, Fuller CM. A community based approach to linking injection drug users with needed services through pharmacies: an evaluation of a pilot intervention in New York City. AIDS Educ Prev. 2010;22(3):238–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sørensen EW, Haugbølle LS. Using an action research process in pharmacy practice research—a co-operative project between university and internship pharmacies. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2008;4:384–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sørensen EW, Herborg H, Haugbølle LS, Tomsen D. Improving situated learning in pharmacy internship. Pharm Educ. 2005;5(3/4):223–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tanna KN. AR: a valuable research technique for service delivery development. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27:4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tanna KN, Pitkin J, Anderson C. Development of the specialist menopause pharmacist (SMP) role within a research frame work. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tapp H, Kuhn L, Alkhazraji T, Steuerwald M, Ludden T, Wilson S, Mowrer L, Mohanan S, Dulin MF. Adapting community based participatory research (CBPR) methods to the implementation of an asthma shared decision making intervention in ambulatory practices. J Asthma. 2014;51(4):380–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. van Buul LW, Sikkens JJ, van Agtmael MA, Kramer HM, van der Steen JT, Hertogh CM. Participatory action research in antimicrobial stewardship: a novel approach to improving antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals and long-term care facilities. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014; 69(7):1734–41. doi:10.1093/jac/dku068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

These studies would not have been possible without the work and support from members of the steering and project groups, the participating interns and their supervisors in 1998–2001, financial support from various foundations (the Pharmacy Foundation, the Hørslev Foundation and the Ministry of Health) and support from the University of Copenhagen.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lotte Stig Nørgaard.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nørgaard, L.S., Sørensen, E.W. Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change. Int J Clin Pharm 38, 739–745 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0310-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0310-9

Keywords

Navigation