Derek Stewart1, Scott Cunningham2, Alison Strath3, Andrew MacLure4, Kathrine Gibson-Smith5, Gordon F Rushworth6, Tobias Dreischulte7, Christopher Nicolson8, David Pfleger9, Dawn Tiernan10, Katie MacLure11. 1. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: d.stewart@rgu.ac.uk. 2. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: s.cunningham@rgu.ac.uk. 3. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: a.strath@rgu.ac.uk. 4. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: a.k.maclure1@rgu.ac.uk. 5. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: k.l.gibson-smith@rgu.ac.uk. 6. Highland Pharmacy Education and Research Centre, Centre for Health Science, Old Perth Road, Inverness, IV2 3JH, UK. Electronic address: gordon.rushworth@nhs.net. 7. Pharmacy Department, NHS Tayside, Kings Cross Hospital, Clepington Road, Dundee, DD3 8EA, UK. Electronic address: t.dreischulte@dundee.ac.uk. 8. NHS Orkney/Shetland, Gilbert Bain Hospital, South Road, Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 0TB, UK. Electronic address: christophernicolson@nhs.net. 9. Pharmacy & Medicines Directorate, Westholme, Woodend Hospital, Queens Road, Aberdeen, AB15 6LS, UK. Electronic address: david.pfleger@nhs.net. 10. Pharmacy Department, Western Isles Hospital, MacAulay Road, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, HS1 2AF, UK. Electronic address: dawn.tiernan@nhs.net. 11. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, The Sir Ian Wood Building, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, UK. Electronic address: k.m.maclure@rgu.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While studies have reported pharmacists' perspectives of research involvement, almost all are limited by sector, have little focus on research translation and have not incorporated behavior change theory. OBJECTIVE: To determine pharmacists' views and experiences of research conduct, dissemination and translation. METHODS: This was an electronic cross-sectional survey of pharmacists across six Scottish health board areas. Survey items were: demographics; research activities (e.g. conduct, dissemination) in the last two years; research interests, experience and confidence in research tasks (e.g. proposal writing, data collection); and Likert statements on research conduct and dissemination, and translating research findings to practice. Conduct/dissemination and translation items were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and principal component analysis (PCA) of TDF items. Following determination of internal consistency, scores for each component were calculated. RESULTS: The response rate was 19.4% (136/701), with 17 (12.5%) currently involved in research. Responses were more positive for interest in research than experience or confidence. PCA of research conduct/dissemination items identified three internally reliable components of support/opportunities, motivation/outcomes, and roles/characteristics. Component scores for support/opportunities to participate in research were most negative. PCA of translation items identified three internally reliable components of current practices/abilities, consequences and support. Scores for all three components were positive, being most positive for consequences of research translation. Those in secondary care, with a postgraduate qualification and prescribers scored higher for interest, experience, confidence, and for most components (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A minority of pharmacists are involved in the research conduct/dissemination and these are more likely to be highly qualified individuals based in secondary care. Given the need to develop and evaluate new models of pharmaceutical care, involvement should be extended to all practice settings. Study findings could be used to develop behavior change interventions targeting individuals and organizations.
BACKGROUND: While studies have reported pharmacists' perspectives of research involvement, almost all are limited by sector, have little focus on research translation and have not incorporated behavior change theory. OBJECTIVE: To determine pharmacists' views and experiences of research conduct, dissemination and translation. METHODS: This was an electronic cross-sectional survey of pharmacists across six Scottish health board areas. Survey items were: demographics; research activities (e.g. conduct, dissemination) in the last two years; research interests, experience and confidence in research tasks (e.g. proposal writing, data collection); and Likert statements on research conduct and dissemination, and translating research findings to practice. Conduct/dissemination and translation items were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and principal component analysis (PCA) of TDF items. Following determination of internal consistency, scores for each component were calculated. RESULTS: The response rate was 19.4% (136/701), with 17 (12.5%) currently involved in research. Responses were more positive for interest in research than experience or confidence. PCA of research conduct/dissemination items identified three internally reliable components of support/opportunities, motivation/outcomes, and roles/characteristics. Component scores for support/opportunities to participate in research were most negative. PCA of translation items identified three internally reliable components of current practices/abilities, consequences and support. Scores for all three components were positive, being most positive for consequences of research translation. Those in secondary care, with a postgraduate qualification and prescribers scored higher for interest, experience, confidence, and for most components (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A minority of pharmacists are involved in the research conduct/dissemination and these are more likely to be highly qualified individuals based in secondary care. Given the need to develop and evaluate new models of pharmaceutical care, involvement should be extended to all practice settings. Study findings could be used to develop behavior change interventions targeting individuals and organizations.