| Title |
Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure moral distress in community pharmacists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0413-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jayne L. Astbury, Cathal T. Gallagher |
| Abstract |
Background Pharmacists work within a highly-regulated occupational sphere, and are bound by strict legal frameworks and codes of professional conduct. This regulatory environment creates the potential for moral distress to occur due to the limitations it places on acting in congruence with moral judgements. Very little research regarding this phenomenon has been undertaken in pharmacy: thus, prominent research gaps have arisen for the development of a robust tool to measure and quantify moral distress experienced in the profession. Objective The aim of this study was to develop an instrument to measure moral distress in community pharmacists. Setting Community pharmacies in the United Kingdom. Method This study adopted a three-phase exploratory sequential mixed-method design. Three semi-structured focus groups were then conducted to allow pharmacists to identify and explore scenarios that cause moral distress. Each of the identified scenarios were developed into a statement, which was paired with twin seven-point Likert scales to measure the frequency and intensity of the distress, respectively. Content validity, reliability, and construct validity were all tested, and the questionnaire was refined. Main outcome measure The successful development of the valid instrument for use in the United Kingdom. Results This research has led to the development of a valid and reliable instrument to measure moral distress in community pharmacists in the UK. The questionnaire has already been distributed to a large sample of community pharmacists. Conclusion Results from this distribution will be used to inform the formulation of coping strategies for dealing with moral distress. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#19,280,634
of 23,866,543 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#968
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,827
of 425,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,866,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.