OBJECTIVE: To examine methodologic issues of access and confidentiality regarding the use of pharmacy computer prescription databases (PCPDs) for participant selection to receive mailed, self-administered, hypertensive quality-of-life survey outside a primary-care setting. DESIGN: Two separate PCPD searches by pharmacist owners for patients prescribed at least one of 130 potential antihypertensive medications. The first PCPD used a nonrandom sample of all patients (n = 635); the second PCPD used a random sample (n = 100) of three specific antihypertensive drug groups. Research protocol was approved by the investigators' institutional review board. SETTING: Two independent, privately owned PCPDs. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Individuals prescribed at least 1 of 130 PCPD medications potentially used in antihypertensive treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Individually addressed cover letter on pharmacy letterhead signed by a pharmacist requesting voluntary completion of the enclosed, self-administered, opinion survey on quality of life. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Anonymous survey return to off-site post office box in envelope provided. RESULTS: Favorable or no opposition to PCPD methodology from pharmacist or participants. Ethical opposition was encountered when incorporating PCPD sampling technique into grant proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The American Pharmaceutical Association Code of Ethics is used as a basis to provide recommendations to examine and justify PCPD investigative use. Increasing availability of PCPD technology encourages more efficient and easier methods of research strategy. PCPD use, however, demands identical stringent guidelines used in traditional research and raises potential issues regarding pharmacist-patient confidentiality as well as the right of PCPD use by others.
OBJECTIVE: To examine methodologic issues of access and confidentiality regarding the use of pharmacy computer prescription databases (PCPDs) for participant selection to receive mailed, self-administered, hypertensive quality-of-life survey outside a primary-care setting. DESIGN: Two separate PCPD searches by pharmacist owners for patients prescribed at least one of 130 potential antihypertensive medications. The first PCPD used a nonrandom sample of all patients (n = 635); the second PCPD used a random sample (n = 100) of three specific antihypertensive drug groups. Research protocol was approved by the investigators' institutional review board. SETTING: Two independent, privately owned PCPDs. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Individuals prescribed at least 1 of 130 PCPD medications potentially used in antihypertensive treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Individually addressed cover letter on pharmacy letterhead signed by a pharmacist requesting voluntary completion of the enclosed, self-administered, opinion survey on quality of life. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Anonymous survey return to off-site post office box in envelope provided. RESULTS: Favorable or no opposition to PCPD methodology from pharmacist or participants. Ethical opposition was encountered when incorporating PCPD sampling technique into grant proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The American Pharmaceutical Association Code of Ethics is used as a basis to provide recommendations to examine and justify PCPD investigative use. Increasing availability of PCPD technology encourages more efficient and easier methods of research strategy. PCPD use, however, demands identical stringent guidelines used in traditional research and raises potential issues regarding pharmacist-patient confidentiality as well as the right of PCPD use by others.