Literature DB >> 20214269

Patients' preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy.

Michela Tinelli1, Mandy Ryan, Christine Bond.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated patients' preferences for an innovative combined prescribing-and-dispensing role for pharmacists in the management of drug therapies, compared to the more traditional dispensing-only role.
METHODS: The project was a cross-sectional study. A structured self-completed Discrete Choice Experiment questionnaire was administered to a sample of patients aged over 18 years waiting to see their doctor at the surgery. Respondents compared the proposed combined innovative service with both their 'current' service and a 'dispensing-only pharmacist' service. Analyses were initially conducted for all respondents and then repeated excluding those with constant preferences (i.e., those who always chose the same option). The setting was two general practices in Aberdeen, Scotland. KEY
FINDINGS: We approached 244 people and 204 returned an evaluable questionnaire. Everything else being equal, respondents preferred their 'current' service to either the proposed combined prescribing-and-dispensing role or a dispensing-only service. However, those without constant preferences, who were mostly younger, preferred the combined service, where a pharmacist both prescribed and dispensed.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients value input from their pharmacists, but are resistant to change and prefer their current situation. However, younger people are more willing to trade between alternatives, and preferred the innovative combined prescribing-and-dispensing service. Changes in the pharmaceutical service could be supported by the public. The Discrete Choice Experiment approach is considered a useful tool for evaluating preferences for alternative pharmacy services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20214269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Pharm Pract        ISSN: 0961-7671


  16 in total

Review 1.  Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Ewan Gray; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-06

2.  Pharmacy users' expectations of pharmacy encounters: a Q-methodological study.

Authors:  Tobias Renberg; Kristina Wichman Törnqvist; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong; Asa Kettis Lindblad; Mary P Tully
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Evaluation of a pilot study to influence medication adherence of patients with diabetes mellitus type-2 by the pharmacy.

Authors:  Prem Adhien; Liset van Dijk; Marinke de Vegter; Marnix Westein; Giel Nijpels; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2013-08-13

6.  Survey of patients' experiences and perceptions of care provided by nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers in primary care.

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Alison Blenkinsopp; Sue Latter; Alesha Smith; Stephen R Chapman
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Exploring preferences for symptom management in primary care: a discrete choice experiment using a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Anne McAteer; Deokhee Yi; Verity Watson; Patricia Norwood; Mandy Ryan; Philip C Hannaford; Alison M Elliott
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Patients' valuation of the prescribing nurse in primary care: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Karen Gerard; Michela Tinelli; Sue Latter; Alesha Smith; Alison Blenkinsopp
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-04-11       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial.

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mara Ozolins; Fiona Bath-Hextall; Hywel C Williams
Journal:  BMC Dermatol       Date:  2012-10-04

10.  Australian community pharmacy services: a survey of what people with chronic conditions and their carers use versus what they consider important.

Authors:  Sara S McMillan; Fiona Kelly; Adem Sav; Michelle A King; Jennifer A Whitty; Amanda J Wheeler
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.