| Title |
Patients’ reasons for accepting a free community pharmacy asthma service
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0142-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susanne Kaae, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong |
| Abstract |
Background Challenges in recruiting patients at the pharmacy counter for cognitive services have been observed, hampering development in this area. To overcome this barrier, insight into the patient perspective is crucial to understanding their lack of appreciation of the services. However, very few studies have been conducted so far to explore why patients accept or decline offers of cognitive services at the pharmacy counter. Objective To explore patients' reasons for accepting a particular cognitive service (the Inhaler Technique Assessment Service) a service intended to detect inhalation technique errors. The service is reimbursed by the Danish state and takes approximately 10 min. Setting Ten community pharmacies located in different regions of Denmark, including the center and suburbs of Copenhagen. Method Two types of interviews were conducted: long and short semi-structured interviews with 24 patients suffering mainly from asthma and COPD. Researchers from Copenhagen University conducted 11 long interviews and pharmacy internship students from Copenhagen University carried out 13 short interviews. The interviews were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Main outcome measure Patients' perceived needs of an inhalation counseling service as well as their motivation for accepting the service, including their accounts of how the service was orally offered by staff. Results The majority of participants were used to using inhaler devices. The participants felt, for several reasons, little need of an inhaler service and seldom noticed the precise way the service was offered. Patients did not seem to accept the service expecting personal benefits. First timers appeared to accept the service to learn how to use the device correctly, whereas experienced users appeared to accept the ITAS to be helpful to staff or to learn more about health issues in general or were convinced by individual employees who showed a special interest in the participant receiving the service. Privacy problems were felt by several participants. Conclusion The patients felt little need for the inhaler counseling service. Patients however accepted the service for various reasons of which the feeling how staff showing an interest in helping them seemed especially convincing. |
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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,274,720
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#1,010
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,350
of 265,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#23
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 265,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.