A C Quiñones1, H L Mason. 1. Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston 02115-5896, USA. aquinones@mcp.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To characterize pharmacists who work part-time and compare them with pharmacists who work a secondary part-time job (moonlighters) with respect to their motivations for working in a part-time job, and (2) to identify the set of characteristics that best describes pharmacists engaged in each of the part-time work arrangements under study. DESIGN: A five-page questionnaire was mailed to 3,002 licensed pharmacists nationwide. Two follow-up surveys were sent to nonrespondents at the fifth and ninth weeks from the original mailout to ensure an adequate response rate. RESULTS: The net response rate was 57% (n = 1,637). Assessment of the sample did not detect any potential nonresponse bias. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reported working full time, 13% were moonlighters, 14% were part-timers, and 5% were part-timers in more than one job. Reasons for working part-time were analyzed for the moonlighter and part-timer subsamples. A principal components analysis revealed that both groups have distinct motivations for selecting their chosen work arrangement. CONCLUSION: This study provides some insight into those factors affecting pharmacists' decisions to engage in two different types of part-time work. Since pharmacists' alternative work schedules can have repercussions on the quality of pharmacy being practiced, further research on pharmacists' work arrangement choices should provide useful information for work force-related endeavors.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To characterize pharmacists who work part-time and compare them with pharmacists who work a secondary part-time job (moonlighters) with respect to their motivations for working in a part-time job, and (2) to identify the set of characteristics that best describes pharmacists engaged in each of the part-time work arrangements under study. DESIGN: A five-page questionnaire was mailed to 3,002 licensed pharmacists nationwide. Two follow-up surveys were sent to nonrespondents at the fifth and ninth weeks from the original mailout to ensure an adequate response rate. RESULTS: The net response rate was 57% (n = 1,637). Assessment of the sample did not detect any potential nonresponse bias. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reported working full time, 13% were moonlighters, 14% were part-timers, and 5% were part-timers in more than one job. Reasons for working part-time were analyzed for the moonlighter and part-timer subsamples. A principal components analysis revealed that both groups have distinct motivations for selecting their chosen work arrangement. CONCLUSION: This study provides some insight into those factors affecting pharmacists' decisions to engage in two different types of part-time work. Since pharmacists' alternative work schedules can have repercussions on the quality of pharmacy being practiced, further research on pharmacists' work arrangement choices should provide useful information for work force-related endeavors.