2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are professional pharmacy services being offered for free in pharmacies? A feasibility study exploring the use of a time motion study in New Zealand

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Pharmacists report to be providing patient-focused clinical services for which they receive no remuneration. Limited literature exists about unfunded services leading to difficulties in ascertaining an appropriate study design for such research.

          Objective:

          This study aims to assess the appropriateness of a proposed study design before launching a nationwide study to investigate the provision of unfunded patient care services.

          Methods:

          A multi-methods approach was utilised consisting of (1) continuous time motion study in community pharmacies (2) semi structured patient interviews (3) patient follow up (4) semi structured interviews with pharmacy owners/managers. All observations of unfunded patient care services were recorded, numerically coded and descriptively analysed. Semi structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A semantic thematic analysis was carried out. Appropriateness of study design was dictated by the ability to characterise services and obtain patient perceptions.

          Results:

          Ten pharmacies took part in the feasibility study, across the city of Dunedin, New Zealand, representing a range of different practice settings and demographics. Ten patients were interviewed and six responded to follow up. Both pharmacy and patient recruitment proved challenging due to concerns around disruption to workflow and patient privacy. A continuous observation time motion study was found to be appropriate as it minimises disruption to workflow with no additional work required from the pharmacy teams.

          Conclusions:

          A continuous observation time motion study proved to be an appropriate method to investigate the provision of unfunded services on a national scale. The findings of the study suggest design changes such as length of observation time, increasing patient recruitment and additional patient questions to enhance the nationwide study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How we design feasibility studies.

          Public health is moving toward the goal of implementing evidence-based interventions. To accomplish this, there is a need to select, adapt, and evaluate intervention studies. Such selection relies, in part, on making judgments about the feasibility of possible interventions and determining whether comprehensive and multilevel evaluations are justified. There exist few published standards and guides to aid these judgments. This article describes the diverse types of feasibility studies conducted in the field of cancer prevention, using a group of recently funded grants from the National Cancer Institute. The grants were submitted in response to a request for applications proposing research to identify feasible interventions for increasing the utilization of the Cancer Information Service among underserved populations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy

              Background In 2004, a review of pilot studies published in seven major medical journals during 2000-01 recommended that the statistical analysis of such studies should be either mainly descriptive or focus on sample size estimation, while results from hypothesis testing must be interpreted with caution. We revisited these journals to see whether the subsequent recommendations have changed the practice of reporting pilot studies. We also conducted a survey to identify the methodological components in registered research studies which are described as 'pilot' or 'feasibility' studies. We extended this survey to grant-awarding bodies and editors of medical journals to discover their policies regarding the function and reporting of pilot studies. Methods Papers from 2007-08 in seven medical journals were screened to retrieve published pilot studies. Reports of registered and completed studies on the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio database were retrieved and scrutinized. Guidance on the conduct and reporting of pilot studies was retrieved from the websites of three grant giving bodies and seven journal editors were canvassed. Results 54 pilot or feasibility studies published in 2007-8 were found, of which 26 (48%) were pilot studies of interventions and the remainder feasibility studies. The majority incorporated hypothesis-testing (81%), a control arm (69%) and a randomization procedure (62%). Most (81%) pointed towards the need for further research. Only 8 out of 90 pilot studies identified by the earlier review led to subsequent main studies. Twelve studies which were interventional pilot/feasibility studies and which included testing of some component of the research process were identified through the UKCRN Portfolio database. There was no clear distinction in use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility'. Five journal editors replied to our entreaty. In general they were loathe to publish studies described as 'pilot'. Conclusion Pilot studies are still poorly reported, with inappropriate emphasis on hypothesis-testing. Authors should be aware of the different requirements of pilot studies, feasibility studies and main studies and report them appropriately. Authors should be explicit as to the purpose of a pilot study. The definitions of feasibility and pilot studies vary and we make proposals here to clarify terminology.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharmacy Practice
                Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas
                1885-642X
                1886-3655
                Jul-Sep 2021
                31 July 2021
                : 19
                : 3
                : 2422
                Affiliations
                BPharm, PGCertPharm, PhD. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago . Dunedin (New Zealand). yasmin_abdulaziz@ 123456outlook.com
                BA(Hons), MA, PhD, DHMSA. Senior Lecturer. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago . Dunedin (New Zealand). susan.heydon@ 123456otago.ac.nz
                DipPharm(CIT) MPharm, PhD, FNZCP, FISOP, MPS, RegPharmNZ. Professor. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago . Dunedin (New Zealand). stephen.duffull@ 123456otago.ac.nz
                BSc(Pharm) PharmD, PhD. Professor and Dean. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago . Dunedin (New Zealand). carlo.marra@ 123456otago.ac.nz
                Author notes

                Conceptualization: SBD, CAM. Data curation: YHAA. Formal analysis: YHAA. Funding acquisition: YHAA. Investigation: YHAA. Methodology: YHAA, SJH, SBD, CAM. Project administration: CAM. Resources: CAM. Software: YHAA. Supervision: SJH, SBD, CAM. Validation: SJH. Visualization: YHAA. Writing – original draft: YHAA. Writing – review & editing: YHAA, SJH, SBD, CAM.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0564-664X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1110-7025
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6545-9408
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2625-2121
                Article
                pharmpract-19-2422
                10.18549/PharmPract.2021.3.2422
                8370204
                c8c9114d-6b16-404e-85ff-6d47c99fc3ba
                Copyright: © The Authors

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 02 May 2021
                : 11 July 2021
                Categories
                Original Research

                community pharmacy services,pharmaceutical services,patient care,remuneration,professional practice,workflow,pharmacies,pharmacists,research design,feasibility studies,qualitative research,new zealand

                Comments

                Comment on this article