| Literature DB >> 34221203 |
Yi C Sim1, Intan S Mohd-Rosli2, Boon T Lau3, Siew Y Ng4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is one of the essential indicators for assessing the quality of healthcare services being delivered, including pharmacy ambulatory care service, as it determines the practicability and sustainability of the service provided. As such, pharmaceutical care services provided during medication therapy adherence clinic (MTAC) sessions need to be assessed to maximise its effectiveness and benefits to the patients.Entities:
Keywords: Age Factors; Ambulatory Care; Ambulatory Care Facilities; Cross-Sectional Studies; Diabetes Mellitus; Malaysia; Multivariate Analysis; Outpatients; Patient Satisfaction; Pharmaceutical Services; Pharmacists; Race Factors; Sex Factors
Year: 2021 PMID: 34221203 PMCID: PMC8221750 DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2021.2.2353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharm Pract (Granada) ISSN: 1885-642X
Demographic characteristics of respondents
| Characteristics | n (148) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 68 | 45.9 |
| Female | 80 | 54.1 |
| Age (years) | ||
| <40 | 10 | 6.8 |
| 40-49 | 21 | 14.2 |
| 50-59 | 32 | 21.6 |
| >60 | 85 | 57.4 |
| Race | ||
| Malay | 96 | 64.9 |
| Chinese | 18 | 12.2 |
| Indian | 33 | 22.3 |
| Others | 1 | 0.7 |
| Education level | ||
| Primary and below | 57 | 38.5 |
| Secondary | 76 | 51.4 |
| Tertiary and above | 15 | 10.1 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 7 | 4.7 |
| Married | 141 | 95.3 |
| Employment status | ||
| Employed | 40 | 27.0 |
| Unemployed | 108 | 73.0 |
| Monthly income | ||
| < MYR 1000 | 109 | 73.6 |
| MYR 1001- 2000 | 23 | 15.5 |
| MYR 2001- 3000 | 8 | 5.4 |
| MYR 3001- 4000 | 5 | 3.4 |
| MYR 4001- 5000 | 1 | 0.7 |
| > MYR 5001 | 2 | 1.4 |
| Type of Clinic | ||
| DMTAC | 37 | 25.0 |
| RMTAC | 36 | 24.3 |
| WMTAC | 75 | 50.7 |
Association between demographic characteristics and patient satisfaction
| Variables | Patient satisfaction score in quality of care | Patient satisfaction score in interpersonal relationship | Overall Satisfaction Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | p-value[ | Mean (SD) | p- value[ | Mean (SD) | p-value[ | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 3.17 (0.46) | 3.25 (0.42) | 3.20 (0.43) | |||
| Female | 3.34 (0.43) | 3.43 (0.44) | 3.38 (0.41) | |||
| Age (years) | 0.126 | 0.121 | 0.109 | |||
| <60 years old | 3.33 (0.47) | 3.41 (0.45) | 3.36 (0.45) | |||
| ≥60 years old | 3.22 (0.43) | 3.30 (0.43) | 3.25 (0.41) | |||
| Race | 0.218 | 0.233 | 0.202 | |||
| Malay | 3.23 (0.41) | 3.31 (0.43) | 3.26 (0.40) | |||
| Non-Malay | 3.33 (0.52) | 3.41 (0.46) | 3.36 (0.48) | |||
| Education level | ||||||
| Primary and below | 3.15 (0.43) | 3.23 (0.41) | 3.18 (0.41) | |||
| Secondary | 3.32 (0.46) | 3.39 (0.45) | 3.34 (0.43) | |||
| Tertiary and above | 3.43 (0.39) | 3.59 (0.41) | 3.49 (0.37) | |||
| Marital status | 0.322 | 0.934 | 0.497 | |||
| Single | 3.10 (0.19) | 3.33 (0.30) | 3.19 (0.21) | |||
| Married | 3.27 (0.46) | 3.35 (0.45) | 3.30 (0.44) | |||
| Employment status | 0.231 | 0.075 | ||||
| Employed | 3.39 (0.44) | 3.42 (0.46) | 3.40 (0.43) | |||
| Unemployed | 3.22 (0.45) | 3.32 (0.43) | 3.26 (0.43) | |||
| Monthly income | 0.095 | 0.193 | 0.818 | |||
| < MYR1000 | 3.23 (0.46) | 3.32 (0.44) | 3.26 (0.43) | |||
| > MYR1000 | 3.36 (0.42) | 3.43 (0.45) | 3.29 (0.43) | |||
t-test was used for less than 2 variables while the ANOVA test was used for more than 2 variables
Factors associated with patient satisfaction towards MTAC services (N=148)
| Factors | Simple linear regression[ | Multiple linear regression[ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | 95% CI | t | p-value | β | 95% CI | t | p-value | |
| Constant | - | - | - | - | 3.077 | 2.951, 3.203 | 48.349 | <0.001 |
| Gender | 0.173 | 0.035, 0.310 | 2.480 | 0.014 | 0.183 | 0.049, 0.317 | 2.706 | 0.008 |
| Education level | 0.160 | 0.053, 0.267 | 2.958 | 0.004 | 0.167 | 0.062, 0.272 | 3.150 | 0.002 |
Simple linear regression: normality and equal variance assumptions for all variables were met, independent random samples were used for the construction of data
Multiple linear regression: R2 = 0.102; The model fits fairly well, and model assumption were met; There was no multicollinearity problem. No significant interactions were found between factors.
Patient satisfaction score for each survey items
| Survey items (N=148) | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| 1. Pharmacist fully addressed my health concerns during my visit | 3.18 (0.67) |
| 2. Pharmacist was professional in all interaction | 3.26 (0.57) |
| 3. Pharmacist explained information that I can understand | 3.33 (0.50) |
| 4. Pharmacist checked if I understood | 3.28 (0.62) |
| 5. Pharmacist spent as much time needed with my concerns | 3.20 (0.58) |
| 6. Pharmacist made sure I understood following the drug regimen | 3.37 (0.54) |
| 7. Pharmacist provided useful recommendation on taking my med | 3.38 (0.55) |
| 8. Pharmacist made recommendations for my overall health | 3.24 (0.63) |
| 9. Pharmacist worked with me to manage my medication related issues | 3.12 (0.76) |
| 10. Pharmacist followed up on my progress in timely manner | 3.29 (0.50) |
| 11. Pharmacist was caring and kind during interaction | 3.31 (0.52) |
| 12. Pharmacist encouraged me to achieve treatment goals | 3.29 (0.50) |
| 13. Pharmacist made me comfortable during interactions | 3.37 (0.50) |
| 14. Pharmacist was respectful during interactions | 3.38 (0.53) |
| 15. Pharmacist was committed in improving my health | 3.30 (0.56) |
| 16. Pharmacist made me trust all the information provided | 3.43 (0.51) |