↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of pharmacist and public views and experiences of community pharmacy medicines-related services in England

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of pharmacist and public views and experiences of community pharmacy medicines-related services in England
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s112931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth M Rodgers, Shivaun M Gammie, Ruey Leng Loo, Sarah A Corlett, Janet Krska

Abstract

Services provided by community pharmacists designed to support people using medicines are increasing. In England, two national services exist: Medicine Use Reviews (MUR) and New Medicines Service (NMS). Very few studies have been conducted seeking views of the public, rather than service users, on willingness to use these services or expectations of these services, or determined whether views align with pharmacist perceptions. To compare the perceptions of pharmacists and the general public on medicines-related services, particularly MUR and NMS services. Two parallel surveys were conducted in one area of England: one involved the general public and was administered using a street survey, and the other was a postal survey of community pharmacists. Similar questionnaires were used, seeking views of services, awareness, reasons for using services, and perceived benefits. Response rates were 47.2% (1,000/2,012 approached) for the public and 40.8% (341/836) for pharmacists. Few people had experienced a discussion in a private consultation room or were aware of the two formal services, although their willingness to use them was high. Pharmacists estimated time spent on service provision as 10 minutes for MUR and 12 minutes for NMS, which aligned with acceptability to both pharmacists and the public. Pharmacists underestimated the willingness of the public to wait for an informal discussion or to make appointments for formal services. Both pharmacists and the public had high expectations that services would be beneficial in terms of increasing knowledge and understanding, but public expectations and experiences of services helping to sort out problems fell well below pharmacists' perceptions. People who had experienced a pharmacy service had different perceptions of pharmacists. Views differed regarding why people use services and key aspects of service delivery. For services to improve, the pharmacy profession needs a better awareness of what the public, especially those with potential to benefit from services, view as acceptable and desirable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 19%
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 33%
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 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,764,998
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#864
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,100
of 348,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#45
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 348,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.