Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 196–200 | Cite as

The lay user perspective on the quality of pharmaceuticals, drug therapy and pharmacy services – results of focus group discussions

  • Janine Morgall TraulsenEmail author
  • Anna Birna lmarsdóttir
  • Ingunn Björnsdóttir


Background: This article presents the results of a study on quality of pharmacy services and perceived risk of pharmaceuticals. The results presented here are part of a multi-study evaluation of major changes in drug distribution in Iceland. Objectives: This sub-study addressed the question: what is the lay user perspective on pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services, including their perception of risk? Methods: To answer this question, seven focus group discussions were conducted with pharmacy customers in different locations in Iceland following new drug distribution legislation in 1996.Results: The lay perspective emphasizes a definite split between lay and expert views on the value and quality of pharmaceuticals, drug therapy and pharmacy services, as well as in their assessment of risk. Participants voiced spontaneous criticism of the roles of both physicians and pharmacists in drug therapy; and expressed concern about the quality and safety of pharmaceuticals. Some scope for shared values was noted between the legislative goals and the lay user perspective, despite the fact that the public was in no way involved in the drafting of the new legislation. Conclusion: The results of this study raise questions about the nature and extent of the perceived gap between the medical and pharmacy professions on the one side and the lay public and health policy decision-makers on the other side in their views on the quality and safety of pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services.

Drug safety Focus groups Iceland Lay perspective Pharmaceutical care Pharmacy services Risk assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nettleton S. The sociology of health and illness. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calnan M. Health and illness: the lay perspective. London: Tavistock, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams G, Popay J. Lay knowledge and the privilege of experience. In: Gabe J, Kelleher D, Williams G, editors. Challenging medicine. London: Routledge, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abraham J, Sheppard J. Democracy, technocracy, and the secret state of medicines control: expert and nonexpert perspectives. Sci Technol Hum Val 1997;22(2):139–67.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Why professionals and patients need to talk. Connect 1998;1(winter).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Britten N. Lay views of drugs and medicines: orthodox and unorthodox accounts. In: Williams S, Calnan M, editors. Modern medicine-lay perspectives and experiences. London: UCL Press, 1996:48–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown J. Environmental threats: perception analysis and management. London: Bellhaven Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Björnsdóttir I, Hansen EH. Telephone prescribing of antibiotics: general practitioners' views and reflections. Eur J Public Health 2001;11:260–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansen EH. Rationality and common sense in Danish drug therapy. J Soc Adm Pharm 1988;5:105–13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansen EH, Launsø L, Morgall J. Forsøg, læring, evaluering. Samarbejde mellem brugerorganisationer & apoteksfarmaceuter om lægemiddelanvendelse. [Experimenting, learning, evaluating. Cooperation between patient organizations and community pharmacists regarding drug utilization.] Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School of Pharmacy, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beck U. Risk society-towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Almarsdóttir AB, Morgall JM, Björnsdóttir I. A question of emphasis: efficiency or equality in the provision of pharmaceuticals. Int J Health Plann Manage 2000;15:149–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunnlaugsson GÁ. Population and migration patterns 1880–1990. In: Hálfdanarson G, Kristjánsson S, editors. Icelandic societal development 1880–1990: essays. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Social Science Research Institute; 1993:109 [in Icelandic].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fontana A, Frey JH. Interviewing: the art of science. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gabe J. Medicine, health and risk-sociological approaches. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassell K, Noyce P, Rogers A, Harris J, Wilkinson J. Advice provided in British community pharmacies-what people want and what they get. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3(4): 219–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbert D, Bissel P, Ward P. Consumerism and professional work in community pharmacy. Sociol Health Ill 2002:46–65.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Britten N. Patients' ideas about medicines: a qualitative study in a general practice population. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44(387):465–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ): a new method for assessing cognitive representations of medication. Psychol Health 1999;10:1–29.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgall JM, Almarsdóttir AB. No struggle, no strength-how pharmacists lost their monopoly. Soc Sci Med 1999;48(9):71–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janine Morgall Traulsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Birna lmarsdóttir
    • 2
  • Ingunn Björnsdóttir
    • 2
  1. 1.The Department of Social PharmacyThe Royal Danish School of PharmacyCopenhagen ⊘Denmark
  2. 2.Al – Bas LtdHafnarfjördurIceland

Personalised recommendations