Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 102–106 | Cite as

Using semi covert research to evaluate an emergency hormonal contraception service

  • Claire Anderson
  • Paul Bissell


Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the patient group direction protocol for supply of emergency hormonal contraception was being adhered to, that pharmacists were undertaking their professional duties appropriately and to evaluate how women researchers felt that the service was being delivered.

Method: Semi covert research was used, two women researchers posed as clients seeking emergency contraception in a sample of participating community pharmacies. They used two rehearsed scenarios about unsafe sexual intercourse and missed doses of the oral contraceptive pill. All transactions were tape recorded and the recordings were used to produce the findings. The two women researchers posing as clients were also asked to record their feelings and experiences concerning the service on leaving the pharmacy.

Main outcome measure: Adherence to the patient group direction protocol and women's perceptions of service provision.

Results: In both scenarios the protocol was largely adhered to and emergency contraception was supplied appropriately. The length of each consultation for both scenarios was between 10–15 min. The women reported that the pharmacists had been courteous, polite and non judgemental. The consultations were carried out in a private area or in the dispensary. The women had no concerns about confidentiality.

Conclusion: Whilst there are clear limitations of this study in terms of the size of the sample, our results do highlight the fact that the PGD protocol was being utilised appropriately in most cases. In addition, neither woman reported any instances of judgmental or negative attitudes and commented favourably on the scope for discussion about emergency hormonal contraception and other important issues with the pharmacist.

Emergency hormonal contraception Patient Group Directions Community pharmacy Group prescribing protocols Covert research Mystery shopping United Kingdom 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. NEJM 1997; 337: 1058-1064.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Social Exclusion Unit Report into Teenage Pregnancy, 1999; Cm 4342.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson C, Bissell P, Sharma S, Sharma R. Manchester, Salford and Trafford Health Action Zone Report into the Provision of Emergency Contraception in Community Pharmacy Via Patient Group Directions, University of Nottingham, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson C, Bissell P, Sharma S, Sharma R. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Action Zone Report into the Provision of Emergency Contraception In Community Pharmacy Via Patient Group Directions, The Client Perspective. University of Nottingham, 2001. Retrieved from on 24 March 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savage I. Supplying EHC. King's College London, 2001. Retrieved from on 24 March 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellertson C, Shiochet T, Blanchard K, Trussell J. Emergency contraception: a review of the programmatic and social science literature. Contraception 2000; 61: 145-86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O'Brien K, Gray N. Supplying emergency hormonal contraception in Manchester under a group protocol. Pharm J 2000; 264: 518-9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Health Service Executive North West. Patient Group Directions (Group Protocols). Retrieved from on 24 March 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seston L. What the papers say... about emergency contraception. Pharm J 2001: 266: 115.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziebland S. Emergency contraception: an anomalous position in the family planning repertoire? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 1409-17.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stammers T. Pharmacists and STIs. BMJ 2001; 323: 1416.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bissell P, Anderson C. Supplying emergency contraception via community pharmacies in the UK: reflections on the experience of providers and users. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 2367-78.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anon Pharmacists in crisis. Which? 1996 (January); 18-21.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anon. Counter advice. Which? 1999 (April); 22-5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson C, Alexander A. Response to dysmenorrhoea: an assessment of pharmacist's knowledge and its application in practice. Int J Pharm Pract 1993; 2: 180-3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson CA. Controlled study of the effect of a health promotion training scheme on pharmacist's advice about smoking cessation. J Soc Admin Pharm 1995; 12: 115-23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krska J, Greenwood R, Howitt EP. Audit of advice in response to symptoms. Pharm J 1994; 252: 93-6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeAlmedia Neto AC, Benrimoj SJ, Kavanagh DJ, Boakes RA. Novel educational training programme for community pharmacists. Am J Pharm Ed 2000; 64: 302-7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norris PT. Purchasing restricted medicines in New Zealand Pharmacies: results form a ‘mystery shopping’ study. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 149-53.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bessell TL, Anderson JN, Silagy CA, Lloyd N, Sansom AO, Hiller JE. Surfing, self-medicating and safety: buying non-prescription and complementary medicines from Internet pharmacies. QSHC 2003; 12: 88-92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barrett G, Harper R. Health professionals' attitudes to the deregulation of emergency contraception (or the problem of female sexuality). Soc Health Illness 2000; 22: 197-216.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goel P, Aross-Degnan D, McLaughlin T, Soumari S. Influence of location and staff knowledge on quality of retail pharmacy prescribing for childhood diarrhoea in Kenya. Int J Qual Healthcare 1996; 896: 519.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Anderson
    • 1
  • Paul Bissell
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Pharmacy Health and Society, School of PharmacyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations