Community pharmacists' engagement with public health in Great Britain

Objective - The objective of the research was to examine to what extent community pharmacists in Great Britain believed that their job was concerned with local public health issues. Methods - The project (Pharmacy and Public Health)received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Life and Health Sciences at Aston University. After piloting, in August 2006 a self-completion postal questionnaire was sent to practicing community pharmacists in Great Britain (n=1998), with a follow-up to non-responders 4 weeks later. A final response rate of 51% (n=1023/1998) was achieved. Results - Respondents were asked to indicate their answer to the question “to what extent is your present job concerned with local public health issues?” on a three-point scale – “highly”, “slightly” or “not at all” concerned with public health. They were also asked to indicate whether they were pharmacy owners, employee pharmacists or self-employed locum pharmacists. Less than half (43%,n=384/898) of respondents answering both questions believed that their job was highly concerned with public health. A relationship was observed between employment status and the level to which a respondent believed that their job was concerned with public health (chi-square test with P=0.001). Over half of pharmacy owners (51%, n=68/134) considered that their job was highly concerned with public health compared to44% (n=193/443) of employee pharmacists and38% (n=123/321) of locum pharmacists. Conclusion - This research suggests that community pharmacists in Great Britain are not ‘fully engaged’ with public health. Pharmacy owners may feel more enfranchised in the public health movement than their employees and locums. Indeed, one-in-ten locums reported that their job was not at all concerned with public health which, as locum pharmacists constitute over a third of actively employed community pharmacists, could be limiting factor in any drive to strengthen the public health function of community pharmacists.

An exploration of pharmacy-specific reasons for non-adherence to prescribed medicines in a socioeconomically deprived, ethnically diverse UK cohort

Methods - Ethical approval for the study was granted by both the local National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Aston University’s REC. Seven focus groups were conducted between October and December 2011 in medical or community settings within inner-city Birmingham (UK). Discussions were guided by a theme plan which was developed from key themes identified by a literature review and piloted via a Patient Consultation Group. Each focus group had between 3 and 7 participants. The groups were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were then subjected to thematic analysis via constant comparison in order to identify emerging themes. Results - Participants recognised the pharmacist as an expert source of advice about prescribed medicines, a source they frequently felt a need to consult as a result of the inadequate supply of medicines information from the prescriber. However, an emerging theme was a perception that pharmacists had an oblique profit motive relating to the supply of generic medicines with frequent changes to the ‘brand’ of generic supplied being attributed to profit-seeking by pharmacists. Such changes had a negative impact on the patient’s perceived efficacy of the therapy which may make non-adherence more likely. Conclusions - Whilst pharmacists were recognised as medicines experts, trust in the pharmacist was undermined by frequent changes to generic medicines. Such changes have the potential to adversely impact adherence levels. Further, quantitative research is recommended to examine if such views are generalisable to the wider population of Birmingham and to establish if such views impact on adherence levels.

Medicines optimisation for young people with juvenile arthritis and other long-term conditions:system-level barriers to engagement

To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching and learning support and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. We had changed our editorial approach in drawing together the articles for this 2005/6 edition (our third) of the ABS Good Practice Guide. Firstly we have expanded our contributors beyond ABS academics. This year?s articles have also been written by staff from other areas of the University, a PhD student, a post-doctoral researcher and staff working in learning support. We see this as an acknowledgement that the learning environment involves a range of people in the process of student support. We have also expanded the maximum length of the articles from two to five pages, in order to allow greater reflection on the issues. The themes of the papers cluster around issues relating to diversity (widening participation and internationalisation of the student body), imaginative use of new technology (electronic reading on BlackboardTM ) and reflective practitioners, (reflection on rigour and relevance; on how best to train students in research ethics, relevance in the curriculum and the creativity of the teaching process) Discussion of efforts to train the HE teachers of the future looks forward to the next academic year when the Higher Education Academy?s professional standards will be introduced across the sector. In the last volume we mentioned the launch of the School?s Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM). Since then HELM has stimulated a lot of activity across the School (and University) particularly linking research and teaching. A list of the HELM seminars is listed as an appendix to this publication. Further details can be obtained from Catherine Foster (c.s.foster@aston.ac.uk) who coordinates the HELM seminars. HELM has also won its first independent grant from the EU Leonardo programme to look at the effect of business education on employment. In its annual report to the ABS Research Committee HELM listed for 2004 and 2005, 11 refereed journal articles, 4 book chapters, 3 published conference papers, 18 conference papers, one official reports and £72,500 of grant money produced in this research area across the School. I hope that this shows that reflection on learning is live and well in ABS. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles and to Julie Green, the Quality Manager, for putting our diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form.

What purpose does the MPharm research project serve?

In 2004, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) funded research on teaching, learning and assessment within the UK undergraduate pharmacy degree (MPharm), including the compulsory final year project. Documentary analysis showed that all schools met the project requirement, although there were wide variations in the relative contribution of the project to the final year mark and the degree classification. Interviews with staff revealed that organisation of research projects was complex and time consuming and exacerbated by increasing student numbers and the impact of research ethics. 61% of students, surveyed via a self-completion questionnaire (response rate 50.6%) perceived the research project to be very or fairly important. Whilst 47% considered that they had enough choice of topic and 37% said that their training in research methods provided a good foundation for their project, this suggests scope for improvement. In the UK, there are legislative changes impending which may provide an opportunity to review the future purpose and feasibility of a "significant" final year project within the MPharm.

Negotiating access and establishing expertise

This book is concerned with the day-to-day realities of doing social science research. It is based upon the reflections and experiences of a wide range of established social researchers, the majority of whom undertake research in the field of health care. By drawing upon their anecdotal accounts of setting up research projects, negotiating access, collecting and analysing data, and disseminating findings, the book highlights a multitude of practical and ethical complexities involved in the conduct of empirically based research. It delineates the emotional, social and cultural factors involved at all stages of the research process, and sets this delineation in the context of wider debates about the relationship between research methods and research ethics.