Dataset Information

Understanding the psychology of trust between patients and their community pharmacists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pharmacists need patients to trust them in order to support best possible health outcomes. There has been little empirical work to test the widely stated claim that pharmacists are the "most trusted" health care professional. This study was undertaken to characterize the factors that shape public trust of individual pharmacists and the profession as a whole.

Methods

An exploratory qualitative study was undertaken. Semistructured interviews with 13 patients from 5 different community pharmacies were completed. Interview data were transcribed, coded and categorized to identify trust-enhancing and trust-diminishing factors influencing patients' perceptions of pharmacists.

Results

Four trust-diminishing factors were identified, including the business context within which community pharmacy is practised, lack of transparency regarding pharmacists' remuneration, lack of awareness of how pharmacists qualify and are regulated and inconsistent previous experiences with pharmacists. Four trust-enhancing factors were identified, including accessibility, affability, acknowledgement and respect.

Discussion

This study illustrates that trust-diminishing factors appear to be somewhat outside the day-to-day control of individual community pharmacists, while trust-enhancing factors are elements that pharmacists may have greater personal control over. Further research is required to better understand these factors and to develop a more generalizable understanding of how patients develop trust in their pharmacists. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.

SUBMITTER: Gregory PAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8020281 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo apply sociological theories to understand public trust in extended services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners (GPs).DesignQualitative study involving focus groups with members of the public.SettingThe West of Scotland.Participants26 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.ResultsTrust 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.ConclusionCurrent 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.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare stakeholders have pronounced both enthusiasm and apprehension over the expanding use of real-world evidence (RWE). The patient community-those who benefit from new treatments but are vulnerable to potential safety risks and whose routine medical encounters are used to generate RWE-has been less vocal. Understanding patient perspectives on the use of RWE to guide clinical decision making and inform regulatory decisions and value assessments is imperative.MethodsWe convened a day-long, multi-stakeholder roundtable in Washington D.C., USA, on 31 July 2017 to gather patient-community views on RWE and related concerns and the communications, information and tools needed by patients to understand, trust, and use RWE. Participants included a convenience sample of National Health Council (NHC) members primarily representing patient groups as well as non-patient members with an interest in RWE. Participants were organized into small, pre-assigned groups, ensuring representativeness across stakeholders and patient leadership. Discussions, including storyboards, notes, and illustrative examples were captured and later analyzed thematically by NHC staff.ResultsTen RWE themes emerged: (1) most patients were unaware of RWE and its actual or potential uses, (2) common definitions for real-world data and RWE are needed, (3) patient organizations need RWE skills and tools, (4) patient-scientist partnerships can help differentiate high-quality RWE, (5) RWE should inform decision making, (6) clinician support is needed for RWE uptake in patient decision making, (7) communications to patients should be balanced and empowering, (8) context of use impacts RWE acceptability/trust, (9) privacy/data ownership require clarity, and (10) patient-generated data are also real-world data (RWD).ConclusionPatients see great possibility in using RWE to understand how a treatment works-to find someone that "looks like me" as assurance of how a treatment might benefit them personally. Patient groups will play a critical role in helping to educate constituents on understanding, contributing to, and using RWE. To maximize patient uptake and the co-development and application of RWE, patient groups require education and tools.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists.MethodsThe DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool's reliability and content validity.ResultsThree hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors "Activation for collaborative professional practice," the "Integration in collaborative professional practice," and the "Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice." The tool demonstrated an adequate fit (X2/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.924).ConclusionsThe Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.

Project description:Background: A high level of well-being is associated with personal, community and national income, as well as personal, social and political trust. How these measures relate to each other within and between countries and within and across structural levels of society is largely unknown. To study this, we propose a three-layer nested socio-structural model. Each layer (individual, community, country) contains a measure of income, trust and satisfaction. Method: With this model, we analyzed data from two waves of the European Social Survey (ESS, 2006, 2012) in 19 countries (N = 72,461; weighted N = 73,307) with multilevel techniques. Indicators were personal, community, and national income; personal, social and political trust; and personal life satisfaction, social and political satisfaction. Results: Personal life satisfaction was associated with all income and trust variables. Greatest effect on personal life satisfaction, came from the national level, including political trust and income. However, 2/3 of the variance in personal life satisfaction came from income, that is personal, community and national. Within each socio-structural level, satisfaction was associated with income, but significantly modified by trust. When income and trust at all three levels were included, there was a significant association of the national layer on the social layer, and of the social layer on the individual layer as to the income-personal life satisfaction relationship. Consistent with the "the buffer hypothesis," all three forms of trust acted as a buffer against the effect of personal income on life satisfaction. Low-trust countries had strong income-personal life satisfaction associations and the moderating role of trust was also stronger. High- and medium-trust countries had no such associations. Likewise, direct associations between political and personal trust were much stronger in the low-trust countries. Conclusion: The model presented in this study provides authorities with a framework for policies that will improve the general well-being of their population. Trust and income strongly influence personal life satisfaction. Money is the most important. However, trust forcefully dampens the effect of income. Politicians who want to enhance their population's personal life satisfaction, should raise the levels of trust in their electorate.