Dataset Information

Understanding public trust in services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To apply sociological theories to understand public trust in extended services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners (GPs).

Design

Qualitative study involving focus groups with members of the public.

Setting

The West of Scotland.

Participants

26 purposively sampled members of the public were involved in one of five focus groups. The groups were composed to represent known groups of users and non-users of community pharmacy, namely mothers with young children, seniors and men.

Results

Trust was seen as being crucial in healthcare settings. Focus group discussions revealed that participants were inclined to draw unfavourable comparisons between pharmacists and GPs. Importantly, participants' trust in GPs was greater than that in pharmacists. Participants considered pharmacists to be primarily involved in medicine supply, and awareness of the pharmacist's extended role was low. Participants were often reluctant to trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, particularly those perceived to be 'high risk'. Numerous system-based factors were identified, which reinforce patient trust and confidence in GPs, including GP registration and appointment systems, GPs' expert/gatekeeper role and practice environments. Our data indicate that the nature and context of public interactions with GPs fostered familiarity with a specific GP or practice, which allowed interpersonal trust to develop. By contrast, participants' exposure to community pharmacists was limited. Additionally, a good understanding of the GPs' level of training and role promoted confidence.

Conclusion

Current UK initiatives, which aim to implement a range of pharmacist-led services, are undermined by lack of public trust. It seems improbable that the public will trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, which are perceived to be 'high risk', unless health systems change in a way that promotes trust in pharmacists. This may be achieved by increasing the quality and quantity of patient interactions with pharmacists and gaining GP support for extended pharmacy services.

SUBMITTER: Gidman W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3358628 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPharmacists are increasingly providing patient-focused services in community pharmacies, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Specific SRH areas have been the focus of research, but a broader perspective is needed to position pharmacists as SRH providers. This review explored research that described and evaluated professional pharmacy services across a broad range of SRH areas.DesignScoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library (January 2007-July 2020).Study selectionStudies reporting on the description and evaluation of professional pharmacy SRH services provided by community pharmacists.Data extractionTwo investigators screened studies for eligibility, and one investigator extracted the data. Data were analysed to primarily describe professional pharmacy services and intervention outcomes.ResultsForty-one studies were included. The main SRH areas and professional pharmacy services reported were sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections (63%) and screening (39%), respectively. Findings showed that pharmacists' delivery of SRH services was feasible, able to reach vulnerable and high-risk groups, and interventions were highly accepted and valued by users. However, integration into daily workflow, pharmacist remuneration, cost and reimbursement for patients, and policy regulations were some of the barriers identified to implementing SRH services. Studies were primarily in specific areas such as chlamydia screening or hormonal contraception prescribing, while studies in other areas (ie, medical abortion provision, long-acting reversible contraception prescribing and vaccine delivery in pregnant women) were lacking.ConclusionThis scoping review highlights the expansion of pharmacists' roles beyond traditional product-focused services in a number of SRH areas. Given the potential feasibility, users' acceptability and reach, pharmacists are ideally situated to enhance SRH care access. Future research describing implementation and evaluation of professional pharmacy services in all SRH areas is needed to promote access to these services through community pharmacies and position pharmacists as SRH providers worldwide.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in profound health challenges across the globe. Pharmacists' readiness to cope with the pandemic is critical in supporting and sustaining the healthcare workforce to meet the challenges.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine community pharmacists' views on their work environment, policies and preparedness for safe retail patronage to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and assess the variables influencing coping strategies during the pandemic.SettingAn online survey of pharmacists practising in community pharmacy setting in Malaysia.MethodA questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study was conducted in Malaysia to evaluate coping strategies of community pharmacists and pharmaceutical services provided during COVID-19 pandemic. Between May 1 and July 31, 2020, the questionnaire was distributed to pharmacists working in community setting nationwide utilising a snowball sampling method.Main outcome measureCommunity pharmacists' perceptions on safety, resilience, organisational support, and pharmaceutical services offered during COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsA total of 217 pharmacists participated in the study. The vast majority of community pharmacists reported a positive outlook and were able to balance working with self-care during this period. Most reported to have access to personal protective equipment such as gloves and hand sanitisers. A large proportion of community pharmacies also installed physical barriers in doorways or in front of the counter, put markings on the ground to section areas to ensure physical distancing, and controlled the number of customers who could access the pharmacy during this period. Innovations reported to be implemented included teleconsultations and providing curb-side or drive-through delivery and pickup services.ConclusionThe findings suggest the frontline and essential roles of community pharmacists in delivering pandemic responses, creating the opportunity to determine areas where community pharmacy services can be incorporated to strengthen the public health system and improve patient health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.