Validation of the Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index for physicians in Malaysia

Background Establishing a collaborative working relationship between doctors and pharmacists is essential for the effective provision of pharmaceutical care. The Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index (PPCI) was developed to assess the professional exchanges between doctors and pharmacists. Two versions of the PPCI was developed: one for physicians and one for pharmacists. However, these instruments have not been validated in Malaysia. Objective To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia. Setting An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Methods This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a “collaborator” or a “non-collaborator”. Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later. Main outcome measure Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test–retest) of the PPCI for physicians. Results A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. “Collaborators” had significantly higher scores compared to “non-collaborators” (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p