Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors
Assessing the quantity and quality of pharmacist-patient communication is important to create strategies for improving communication. Findings from studies on pharmacist-patient communication differ on the extent of communication by pharmacists. This disagreement could be because of different method...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Research in social and administrative pharmacy 2011-09, Vol.7 (3), p.272-280 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 280 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 272 |
container_title | Research in social and administrative pharmacy |
container_volume | 7 |
creator | Shah, Bupendra K. Chewning, Betty |
description | Assessing the quantity and quality of pharmacist-patient communication is important to create strategies for improving communication. Findings from studies on pharmacist-patient communication differ on the extent of communication by pharmacists. This disagreement could be because of different methods of data collection, samples, and concepts used to measure communication.
This research compared findings from 2 widely used methods of data collection (survey and observation) to identify: (1) the extent to which pharmacists ask questions to patients and provide information on directions, side effects, and adverse effect, (2) agreement between observation and patient report data on pharmacist information giving and question asking, and (3) how patient perceptions of question asking vary according to the structure of the question asked.
A cross-sectional fieldwork design was used to collect data from a stratified random sample of 30 community pharmacies in Southeast and South-central Wisconsin. At each pharmacy, the dispensing pharmacist and 12 patients filling prescriptions were recruited. Each patient was observed for their interaction with the pharmacist and completed a survey while exiting the pharmacy. Both the survey and the observation tool consisted of items pertaining to recording of pharmacist information provision related to direction, side effects, and interactions, and pharmacist’s question-asking behaviors. Descriptive analyses and correlations are reported.
There was good agreement between the 2 methods regarding pharmacist information provision behaviors (
r
=
0.091,
P
<
.001), this was less true of question asking (
r
=
0.28,
P
=
.034). Certain types of questions showed greater concordance with the observed pharmacist questions. Patients were less likely to report having been asked a question when it took the form of a nonspecific closed-ended questions, that is, “Do you have any questions?”
One of the most frequent questions pharmacists ask patients may not be either remembered or perceived by patients as a serious question, let alone an invitation to raise a concern. Secondly, during the selection of a specific method of data collection, researchers need to weigh strengths and weaknesses of various methods. Multimethod studies are encouraged. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.07.001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_887758545</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S155174111000077X</els_id><sourcerecordid>887758545</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-cc4e8c0bc61ee91b216872dc662a4f50c4dfc7470ba6c4068ad17e2599f881fb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtu2zAQQIkiQZ04PUIL7bKSy5FJkVoFgdF8gADdJGuCGo1gGpaokpKD7HKNXK8nKR072XY1xMybDx9j34EvgEP5c7OIdljb0C0KnnJcLTiHL-wMqqXINUh-kt5SQq4EwIydx7jhfKk4iK9sVsBSQSXKM-ZWvkcfGtsjZTWNz0R95utIYUchCzT4MMbM9k022NFRP2ZxSqWXz5Jvs_czLLo4xr-vbxn6rpt6h4n3fZq5tjvnQ7xgp63dRvp2jHP2dPPrcXWXP_y-vV9dP-SYDh1zREEaeY0lEFVQF1BqVTRYloUVreQomhaVULy2JQpeatuAokJWVas1tPVyzi4Pc4fg_0wUR9O5iLTd2p78FI3WSkkthUykPJAYfIyBWjME19nwYoCbvWSzMUfJZi_ZcGWS5NT347hhqjtqPrs-rCbg6gBQ-ufOUTARkzukxgXC0TTe_WfFPx5PlF4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>887758545</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Shah, Bupendra K. ; Chewning, Betty</creator><creatorcontrib>Shah, Bupendra K. ; Chewning, Betty</creatorcontrib><description>Assessing the quantity and quality of pharmacist-patient communication is important to create strategies for improving communication. Findings from studies on pharmacist-patient communication differ on the extent of communication by pharmacists. This disagreement could be because of different methods of data collection, samples, and concepts used to measure communication.
This research compared findings from 2 widely used methods of data collection (survey and observation) to identify: (1) the extent to which pharmacists ask questions to patients and provide information on directions, side effects, and adverse effect, (2) agreement between observation and patient report data on pharmacist information giving and question asking, and (3) how patient perceptions of question asking vary according to the structure of the question asked.
A cross-sectional fieldwork design was used to collect data from a stratified random sample of 30 community pharmacies in Southeast and South-central Wisconsin. At each pharmacy, the dispensing pharmacist and 12 patients filling prescriptions were recruited. Each patient was observed for their interaction with the pharmacist and completed a survey while exiting the pharmacy. Both the survey and the observation tool consisted of items pertaining to recording of pharmacist information provision related to direction, side effects, and interactions, and pharmacist’s question-asking behaviors. Descriptive analyses and correlations are reported.
There was good agreement between the 2 methods regarding pharmacist information provision behaviors (
r
=
0.091,
P
<
.001), this was less true of question asking (
r
=
0.28,
P
=
.034). Certain types of questions showed greater concordance with the observed pharmacist questions. Patients were less likely to report having been asked a question when it took the form of a nonspecific closed-ended questions, that is, “Do you have any questions?”
One of the most frequent questions pharmacists ask patients may not be either remembered or perceived by patients as a serious question, let alone an invitation to raise a concern. Secondly, during the selection of a specific method of data collection, researchers need to weigh strengths and weaknesses of various methods. Multimethod studies are encouraged.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1551-7411</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1934-8150</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.07.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21371946</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Agreement ; Assessment methods ; Communication ; Community Pharmacy Services ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Data Collection ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Measurement issues ; Observation ; Pharmacist-patient communication ; Pharmacists ; Professional-Patient Relations ; Survey</subject><ispartof>Research in social and administrative pharmacy, 2011-09, Vol.7 (3), p.272-280</ispartof><rights>2011 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-cc4e8c0bc61ee91b216872dc662a4f50c4dfc7470ba6c4068ad17e2599f881fb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-cc4e8c0bc61ee91b216872dc662a4f50c4dfc7470ba6c4068ad17e2599f881fb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.07.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21371946$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shah, Bupendra K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chewning, Betty</creatorcontrib><title>Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors</title><title>Research in social and administrative pharmacy</title><addtitle>Res Social Adm Pharm</addtitle><description>Assessing the quantity and quality of pharmacist-patient communication is important to create strategies for improving communication. Findings from studies on pharmacist-patient communication differ on the extent of communication by pharmacists. This disagreement could be because of different methods of data collection, samples, and concepts used to measure communication.
This research compared findings from 2 widely used methods of data collection (survey and observation) to identify: (1) the extent to which pharmacists ask questions to patients and provide information on directions, side effects, and adverse effect, (2) agreement between observation and patient report data on pharmacist information giving and question asking, and (3) how patient perceptions of question asking vary according to the structure of the question asked.
A cross-sectional fieldwork design was used to collect data from a stratified random sample of 30 community pharmacies in Southeast and South-central Wisconsin. At each pharmacy, the dispensing pharmacist and 12 patients filling prescriptions were recruited. Each patient was observed for their interaction with the pharmacist and completed a survey while exiting the pharmacy. Both the survey and the observation tool consisted of items pertaining to recording of pharmacist information provision related to direction, side effects, and interactions, and pharmacist’s question-asking behaviors. Descriptive analyses and correlations are reported.
There was good agreement between the 2 methods regarding pharmacist information provision behaviors (
r
=
0.091,
P
<
.001), this was less true of question asking (
r
=
0.28,
P
=
.034). Certain types of questions showed greater concordance with the observed pharmacist questions. Patients were less likely to report having been asked a question when it took the form of a nonspecific closed-ended questions, that is, “Do you have any questions?”
One of the most frequent questions pharmacists ask patients may not be either remembered or perceived by patients as a serious question, let alone an invitation to raise a concern. Secondly, during the selection of a specific method of data collection, researchers need to weigh strengths and weaknesses of various methods. Multimethod studies are encouraged.</description><subject>Agreement</subject><subject>Assessment methods</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Community Pharmacy Services</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Measurement issues</subject><subject>Observation</subject><subject>Pharmacist-patient communication</subject><subject>Pharmacists</subject><subject>Professional-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Survey</subject><issn>1551-7411</issn><issn>1934-8150</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtu2zAQQIkiQZ04PUIL7bKSy5FJkVoFgdF8gADdJGuCGo1gGpaokpKD7HKNXK8nKR072XY1xMybDx9j34EvgEP5c7OIdljb0C0KnnJcLTiHL-wMqqXINUh-kt5SQq4EwIydx7jhfKk4iK9sVsBSQSXKM-ZWvkcfGtsjZTWNz0R95utIYUchCzT4MMbM9k022NFRP2ZxSqWXz5Jvs_czLLo4xr-vbxn6rpt6h4n3fZq5tjvnQ7xgp63dRvp2jHP2dPPrcXWXP_y-vV9dP-SYDh1zREEaeY0lEFVQF1BqVTRYloUVreQomhaVULy2JQpeatuAokJWVas1tPVyzi4Pc4fg_0wUR9O5iLTd2p78FI3WSkkthUykPJAYfIyBWjME19nwYoCbvWSzMUfJZi_ZcGWS5NT347hhqjtqPrs-rCbg6gBQ-ufOUTARkzukxgXC0TTe_WfFPx5PlF4</recordid><startdate>20110901</startdate><enddate>20110901</enddate><creator>Shah, Bupendra K.</creator><creator>Chewning, Betty</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110901</creationdate><title>Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors</title><author>Shah, Bupendra K. ; Chewning, Betty</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-cc4e8c0bc61ee91b216872dc662a4f50c4dfc7470ba6c4068ad17e2599f881fb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Agreement</topic><topic>Assessment methods</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Community Pharmacy Services</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Measurement issues</topic><topic>Observation</topic><topic>Pharmacist-patient communication</topic><topic>Pharmacists</topic><topic>Professional-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Survey</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shah, Bupendra K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chewning, Betty</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Research in social and administrative pharmacy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shah, Bupendra K.</au><au>Chewning, Betty</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors</atitle><jtitle>Research in social and administrative pharmacy</jtitle><addtitle>Res Social Adm Pharm</addtitle><date>2011-09-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>272</spage><epage>280</epage><pages>272-280</pages><issn>1551-7411</issn><eissn>1934-8150</eissn><abstract>Assessing the quantity and quality of pharmacist-patient communication is important to create strategies for improving communication. Findings from studies on pharmacist-patient communication differ on the extent of communication by pharmacists. This disagreement could be because of different methods of data collection, samples, and concepts used to measure communication.
This research compared findings from 2 widely used methods of data collection (survey and observation) to identify: (1) the extent to which pharmacists ask questions to patients and provide information on directions, side effects, and adverse effect, (2) agreement between observation and patient report data on pharmacist information giving and question asking, and (3) how patient perceptions of question asking vary according to the structure of the question asked.
A cross-sectional fieldwork design was used to collect data from a stratified random sample of 30 community pharmacies in Southeast and South-central Wisconsin. At each pharmacy, the dispensing pharmacist and 12 patients filling prescriptions were recruited. Each patient was observed for their interaction with the pharmacist and completed a survey while exiting the pharmacy. Both the survey and the observation tool consisted of items pertaining to recording of pharmacist information provision related to direction, side effects, and interactions, and pharmacist’s question-asking behaviors. Descriptive analyses and correlations are reported.
There was good agreement between the 2 methods regarding pharmacist information provision behaviors (
r
=
0.091,
P
<
.001), this was less true of question asking (
r
=
0.28,
P
=
.034). Certain types of questions showed greater concordance with the observed pharmacist questions. Patients were less likely to report having been asked a question when it took the form of a nonspecific closed-ended questions, that is, “Do you have any questions?”
One of the most frequent questions pharmacists ask patients may not be either remembered or perceived by patients as a serious question, let alone an invitation to raise a concern. Secondly, during the selection of a specific method of data collection, researchers need to weigh strengths and weaknesses of various methods. Multimethod studies are encouraged.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>21371946</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.07.001</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1551-7411 |
ispartof | Research in social and administrative pharmacy, 2011-09, Vol.7 (3), p.272-280 |
issn | 1551-7411 1934-8150 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_887758545 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Agreement Assessment methods Communication Community Pharmacy Services Cross-Sectional Studies Data Collection Female Humans Male Measurement issues Observation Pharmacist-patient communication Pharmacists Professional-Patient Relations Survey |
title | Concordance between observer reports and patient survey reports of pharmacists’ communication behaviors |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T17%3A24%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Concordance%20between%20observer%20reports%20and%20patient%20survey%20reports%20of%20pharmacists%E2%80%99%20communication%20behaviors&rft.jtitle=Research%20in%20social%20and%20administrative%20pharmacy&rft.au=Shah,%20Bupendra%20K.&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=272&rft.epage=280&rft.pages=272-280&rft.issn=1551-7411&rft.eissn=1934-8150&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.07.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E887758545%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=887758545&rft_id=info:pmid/21371946&rft_els_id=S155174111000077X&rfr_iscdi=true |