Building synergies in development research: The application of the mosaic model to animal health research

Development research has responded to a number of charges over the past few decades. For example, when traditional research was accused of being 'top-down', the response was participatory research, linking the 'receptors' to the generators of research. As participatory processes were recognised as producing limited outcomes, the demand-led agenda was born. In response to the alleged failure of research to deliver its products, the 'joined-up' model, which links research with the private sector, has become popular. However, using examples from animal-health research, this article demonstrates that all the aforementioned approaches are seriously limited in their attempts to generate outputs to address the multi-faceted problems facing the poor. The article outlines a new approach to research: the Mosaic Model. By combining different knowledge forms, and focusing on existing gaps, the model aims to bridge basic and applied findings to enhance the efficiency and value of research, past, present, and future.

What is the new medicines use review ‘patient survey’ attempting to capture in the context of existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires and a new conceptual framework?

The community pharmacy service medicines use review (MUR) was introduced in 2005 ‘to improve patient knowledge, concordance and use of medicines’ through a private patient–pharmacist consultation. The MUR presents a fundamental change in community pharmacy service provision. While traditionally pharmacists are dispensers of medicines and providers of medicines advice, and patients as recipients, the MUR considers pharmacists providing consultation-type activities and patients as active participants. The MUR facilitates a two-way discussion about medicines use. Traditional patient–pharmacist behaviours transform into a new set of behaviours involving the booking of appointments, consultation processes and form completion, and the physical environment of the patient–pharmacist interaction moves from the traditional setting of the dispensary and medicines counter to a private consultation room. Thus, the new service challenges traditional identities and behaviours of the patient and the pharmacist as well as the environment in which the interaction takes place. In 2008, the UK government concluded there is at present too much emphasis on the quantity of MURs rather than on their quality.[1] A number of plans to remedy the perceived imbalance included a suggestion to reward ‘health outcomes’ achieved, with calls for a more focussed and scientific approach to the evaluation of pharmacy services using outcomes research. Specifically, the UK government set out the main principal research areas for the evaluation of pharmacy services to include ‘patient and public perceptions and satisfaction’as well as ‘impact on care and outcomes’. A limited number of ‘patient satisfaction with pharmacy services’ type questionnaires are available, of varying quality, measuring dimensions relating to pharmacists’ technical competence, behavioural impressions and general satisfaction. For example, an often cited paper by Larson[2] uses two factors to measure satisfaction, namely ‘friendly explanation’ and ‘managing therapy’; the factors are highly interrelated and the questions somewhat awkwardly phrased, but more importantly, we believe the questionnaire excludes some specific domains unique to the MUR. By conducting patient interviews with recent MUR recipients, we have been working to identify relevant concepts and develop a conceptual framework to inform item development for a Patient Reported Outcome Measure questionnaire bespoke to the MUR. We note with interest the recent launch of a multidisciplinary audit template by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) in an attempt to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] This template includes an MUR ‘patient survey’. We will discuss this ‘patient survey’ in light of our work and existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires, outlining a new conceptual framework as a basis for measuring patient satisfaction with the MUR. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2 June 2008. References 1. Department of Health (2008). Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. London: HMSO. www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7341/7341.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009). 2. Larson LN et al. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. JAmPharmAssoc 2002; 42: 44–50. 3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2009). Pharmacy Medicines Use Review – Patient Audit. London: RPSGB. http:// qi4pd.org.uk/index.php/Medicines-Use-Review-Patient-Audit. html (accessed 29 September 2009).

A conceptual framework of patient satisfaction with a pharmacy adherence service

Background Patients do not adhere to their medicines for a host of reasons which can include their underlying beliefs as well as the quality of their interactions with healthcare professionals. One way of measuring the outcome of pharmacy adherence services is to assess patient satisfaction but no questionnaire exists that truly captures patients' experiences with these relatively new services. Objective Our objective was to develop a conceptual framework specific to patient satisfaction with a community pharmacy adherence service based on criteria used by patients themselves. Setting The study was based in community pharmacies in one large geographical area of the UK (Surrey). All the work was conducted between October 2008 and September 2010. Methods This study involved qualitative non-participant observation and semi-structured interviewing. We observed the recruitment of patients to the Medicines Use Review (MUR) service and also actual MUR consultations (7). We also interviewed patients (15). Data collection continued until no new themes were identified during analysis. We analysed interviews to firstly create a comprehensive account of themes which had significance within the transcripts, then created sub-themes within super-ordinate categories. We used a structure-process-outcome approach to develop a conceptual framework relating to patient satisfaction with the MUR. Favourable ethical opinion for this study was received from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2nd June 2008. Results Five super-ordinate themes linked to patient satisfaction with the MUR service were identified, including relationships with healthcare providers; attitudes towards healthcare providers; patients' experience of health, healthcare and medicines; patients' views of the MUR service; the logistics of the MUR service. In the conceptual framework, structure was conceptualised as existing relationships, environment, and time; process was conceptualised as related to recruitment and consultation stages; and outcome as two concepts of immediate patient outcomes and satisfaction on reflection. Conclusion We identified and highlighted factors that can influence patient satisfaction with the MUR service and this led to the development of a conceptual framework of patient satisfaction with the MUR service. This can form the basis for developing a questionnaire for measuring patient satisfaction with this and similar pharmacy adherence services. Impact of findings on practice * Pharmacists and researchers can access the relevant ideas presented here in relation to patient satisfaction with pharmacy adherence services. * Researcher can use the conceptual framework as a basis for measuring the quality of pharmacy adherence services. * Community pharmacists can improve the quality of healthcare they provide by realizing concepts relevant to patient satisfaction with adherence services.

Knowledge dissemination in the global service marketing community

Purpose– The evolution of the service marketing field was marked by the emergence of a global, vigorous and tolerant community of service marketing researchers. This paper seeks to examine the history of the service marketing community and argues that it may be an archetype for building the emergent global service research community. Design/methodology/approach– The study combines qualitative and quantitative approaches. The authors interviewed four pioneering service scholars and also collected descriptive data (e.g. Authorship, Affiliation, Title, Keywords) of all service related articles published in 13 top peer‐reviewed marketing and service journals over the last 30 years (5,432 articles; 6,450 authors). In a dynamic analysis the authors mapped global collaboration between countries over time and detected clusters of international collaboration. Findings– Findings suggest a growing international collaboration for the USA and the UK, while for other countries like Israel the global collaboration started from a high level and decreases now. Further, the service marketing community never became polarized and there were always contributions from researchers all over the world. Research limitations/implications– As the global service research community is developing, service marketing becomes a research neighborhood within the broader service research community. Simultaneously, other research neighborhoods are emerging within this new community (e.g. service arts, service management, service engineering, service science). Originality/value– Anchored on the social evolution and biological evolution metaphors, this study explains the evolution of the service marketing field from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Furthermore, it explains the development of the service marketing community as an archetype for building the global service research community.

Climate change and infectious disease: time for a new normal?

At present, there is a clarion call for action on climate change across the global health landscape. At the recent WHO-sponsored conference on health and climate (held in Geneva, Switzerland, on Aug 27–29, 2014) and the UN Climate Summit (New York, USA, on Sept 23, 2014), participants were encouraged to act decisively to change the current trajectory of climate disruption. Health inequalities, including those related to infectious diseases, have now been pushed to centre stage. This approach represents a step-change in thinking. But as we are urged toward collective action, is it time to rethink our approach to research, especially in relation to climate change and infectious disease?

Treatment of child anxiety in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: a randomised controlled trial and economic analysis

Background Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for childhood anxiety disorders is associated with modest outcomes in the context of parental anxiety disorder. Objectives This study evaluated whether or not the outcome of CBT for children with anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders is improved by the addition of (i) treatment of maternal anxiety disorders, or (ii) treatment focused on maternal responses. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the additional treatments was also evaluated. Design Participants were randomised to receive (i) child cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT); (ii) CCBT with CBT to target maternal anxiety disorders [CCBT + maternal cognitive–behavioural therapy (MCBT)]; or (iii) CCBT with an intervention to target mother–child interactions (MCIs) (CCBT + MCI). Setting A NHS university clinic in Berkshire, UK. Participants Two hundred and eleven children with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had an anxiety disorder. Interventions All families received eight sessions of individual CCBT. Mothers in the CCBT + MCBT arm also received eight sessions of CBT targeting their own anxiety disorders. Mothers in the MCI arm received 10 sessions targeting maternal parenting cognitions and behaviours. Non-specific interventions were delivered to balance groups for therapist contact. Main outcome measures Primary clinical outcomes were the child’s primary anxiety disorder status and degree of improvement at the end of treatment. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 12 months. Outcomes in the economic analyses were identified and measured using estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYS were combined with treatment, health and social care costs and presented within an incremental cost–utility analysis framework with associated uncertainty. Results MCBT was associated with significant short-term improvement in maternal anxiety; however, after children had received CCBT, group differences were no longer apparent. CCBT + MCI was associated with a reduction in maternal overinvolvement and more confident expectations of the child. However, neither CCBT + MCBT nor CCBT + MCI conferred a significant post-treatment benefit over CCBT in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.62, p = 0.29; adjusted RR CCBT + MCI vs. control: adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.67, p = 0.20, respectively] or global improvement ratings (adjusted RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59, p = 0.05; adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.53, p = 0.13). CCBT + MCI outperformed CCBT on some secondary outcome measures. Furthermore, primary economic analyses suggested that, at commonly accepted thresholds of cost-effectiveness, the probability that CCBT + MCI will be cost-effective in comparison with CCBT (plus non-specific interventions) is about 75%. Conclusions Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment conditions. There was no evidence of a benefit to child outcome of supplementing CCBT with either intervention focusing on maternal anxiety disorder or maternal cognitions and behaviours. However, supplementing CCBT with treatment that targeted maternal cognitions and behaviours represented a cost-effective use of resources, although the high percentage of missing data on some economic variables is a shortcoming. Future work should consider whether or not effects of the adjunct interventions are enhanced in particular contexts. The economic findings highlight the utility of considering the use of a broad range of services when evaluating interventions with this client group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19762288. Funding This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership (09/800/17) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 38.

Protocol for ACCESS: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators to accessing the emergency contraceptive pill from community pharmacies in Australia

Introduction The rate of unplanned pregnancy in Australia remains high, which has contributed to Australia having one of the highest abortion rates of developed countries with an estimated 1 in 5 women having an abortion. The emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) offers a safe way of preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex has occurred. While the ECP has been available over-the-counter in Australian pharmacies for over a decade, its use has not significantly increased. This paper presents a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to accessing the ECP from community pharmacies in Australia. Methods and analysis Data will be collected through one-on-one interviews that are semistructured and in-depth. Partnerships have been established with 2 pharmacy groups and 2 women's health organisations to aid with the recruitment of women and pharmacists for data collection purposes. Interview questions explore domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework in order to assess the factors aiding and/or hindering access to ECP from community pharmacies. Data collected will be analysed using deductive content analysis. The expected benefits of this study are that it will help develop evidence-based workforce interventions to strengthen the capacity and performance of community pharmacists as key ECP providers. Ethics and dissemination The findings will be disseminated to the research team and study partners, who will brainstorm ideas for interventions that would address barriers and facilitators to access identified from the interviews. Dissemination will also occur through presentations and peer-reviewed publications and the study participants will receive an executive summary of the findings. The study has been evaluated and approved by the Monash Human Research Ethics Committee.