↓ Skip to main content

A survey of pharmacists’ perception of foundation level competencies in African countries

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
A survey of pharmacists’ perception of foundation level competencies in African countries
Published in
Human Resources for Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12960-018-0280-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arit Udoh, Andreia Bruno, Ian Bates

Abstract

Evidence from published literature in pharmacy practice research demonstrate that the use of competency frameworks alongside standards of practice facilitate improvement in professional performance and aid expertise development. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacists' perception of relevance to practice of the competencies and behaviours contained in the FIP Global Competency Framework (GbCF v1). The overall objective of the study was to assess the validity of the GbCF v1 framework in selected countries in Africa. A cross-sectional survey of pharmacists practicing in 14 countries in Africa was conducted between November 2012 and December 2014. A combination of purposive and snowball sampling method was used. Data was analysed using SPSS v22. A total of 469 pharmacists completed the survey questionnaire. The majority (91%) of the respondents were from four countries: Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. The study results showed broad agreement on relevance to practice for 90% of the behaviours contained in the GbCF v1 framework. Observed disagreement was associated with area of pharmacy practice and the corresponding patient facing involvement (p ≤ 0.05). In general, the competencies within the 'pharmaceutical care' and 'pharmaceutical public health' clusters received higher weighting on relevance compared to the research-related competencies which had the lowest. Specific inter-country variability on weighting of relevance was observed in five behaviours in the framework although, this was due to disparity in 'degree of relevance' that was related to sample composition in the respective countries. The competencies contained in the GbCF v1 are relevant to pharmacy practice in the study population; however, there are some emergent differences between the African countries surveyed. Overall, the findings provide preliminary evidence that was previously lacking on the relevance of the GbCF v1 competencies to pharmacy practice in the countries surveyed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 19 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 20 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,875,509
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#176
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,395
of 343,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 343,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.