↓ Skip to main content

How can pharmacists develop patient-pharmacist communication skills? A realist review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
How can pharmacists develop patient-pharmacist communication skills? A realist review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0396-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aisling Kerr, Judith Strawbridge, Caroline Kelleher, Fien Mertens, Peter Pype, Myriam Deveugele, Teresa Pawlikowska

Abstract

Good patient-pharmacist communication improves health outcomes. There is, however, room for improving pharmacists' communication skills. These develop through complex interactions during undergraduate pharmacy education, practice-based learning and continuing professional development. Research is needed to determine how best to approach teaching patient-pharmacist communication. The aim of the research is to understand how educational interventions develop patient-pharmacist interpersonal communication skills produce their effects. A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the literature to make sense of the complexities of educational interventions. Our review will iteratively progress through the various stages of clarifying scope, locating existing theories, searching for evidence, appraisal of papers, data extraction and synthesis. A scoping review revealed a number of substantive theories, which will be used to build an initial programme theory. This will be explored through available published evidence, which we will find by searching databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science. Judgements will be made on the relevance and rigour of the retrieved literature and will be taken into consideration during analysis and synthesis. Synthesis, testing and refinement of the theories will describe and explain the links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of educational interventions for communication development in pharmacy. The realist review will provide an analysis of what works when, for whom, how and why, for educational interventions for interpersonal patient-pharmacist communication development. We will also explore barriers to successful communications training and acknowledge any limitations. Ultimately, we plan to provide pharmacy educators with evidence for how best to incorporate educational interventions for communications skills development into pharmacy curricula and for life-long learning opportunities for pharmacists.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,014,354
of 14,291,740 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#742
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,815
of 349,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,291,740 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 349,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.