↓ Skip to main content

Using Focus Groups to Validate a Pharmacy Vaccination Training Program

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Focus Groups to Validate a Pharmacy Vaccination Training Program
Published in
Pharmacy, June 2015
DOI 10.3390/pharmacy3020039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Bushell, Hana Morrissey, Patrick Ball

Abstract

Introduction: Focus group methodology is commonly used to quickly collate, integrated views from a variety of different stakeholders. This paper provides an example of how focus groups can be employed to collate expert opinion informing amendments on a newly developed training program for integration into undergraduate pharmacy curricula. Materials and methods: Four focus groups were conducted, across three continents, to determine the appropriateness and reliability of a developed vaccination training program with nested injection skills training. All focus groups were comprised of legitimate experts in the field of vaccination, medicine and/or pharmacy. Results: Themes that emerged across focus groups informed amendments giving rise to a validated version of a training program. Discussion: The rigorous validation of the vaccination training program offers generalizable lessons to inform the design and validation of future training programs intended for the health sector and or pharmacy curricula. Using the knowledge and experience of focus group participants fostered collaborative problem solving and validation of material and concept development. The group dynamics of a focus group allowed synthesis of feedback in an inter-professional manner. Conclusions: This paper provides a demonstration of how focus groups can be structured and used by health researchers to validate a newly developed training program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Other 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,689,948
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacy
#417
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,077
of 264,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacy
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 264,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.