Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Research Using Social Media: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although primarily used for social networking and often used for social support and dissemination, data on social media platforms are increasingly being used to facilitate research. However, the ethical challenges in conducting social media research remain of great concern. Although much debated in the literature, it is the views of the public that are most pertinent to inform future practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to ascertain attitudes on the ethical considerations of using social media as a data source for research as expressed by social media users and researchers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, wherein 16 databases and 2 Internet search engines were searched in addition to handsearching, reference checking, citation searching, and contacting authors and experts. Studies that conducted any qualitative methods to collect data on attitudes on the ethical implications of research using social media were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the quality of reporting tool (QuaRT) and findings analyzed using inductive thematic synthesis. RESULTS: In total, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Attitudes varied from overly positive with people expressing the views about the essential nature of such research for the public good, to very concerned with views that social media research should not happen. Underlying reasons for this variation related to issues such as the purpose and quality of the research, the researcher affiliation, and the potential harms. The methods used to conduct the research were also important. Many respondents were positive about social media research while adding caveats such as the need for informed consent or use restricted to public platforms only. CONCLUSIONS: Many conflicting issues contribute to the complexity of good ethical practice in social media research. However, this should not deter researchers from conducting social media research. Each Internet research project requires an individual assessment of its own ethical issues. Guidelines on ethical conduct should be based on current evidence and standardized to avoid discrepancies between, and duplication across, different institutions, taking into consideration different jurisdictions

Public health in community pharmacy: a systematic review of pharmacist and consumer views

BACKGROUND The increasing involvement of pharmacists in public health will require changes in the behaviour of both pharmacists and the general public. A great deal of research has shown that attitudes and beliefs are important determinants of behaviour. This review aims to examine the beliefs and attitudes of pharmacists and consumers towards pharmaceutical public health in order to inform how best to support and improve this service. METHODS Five electronic databases were searched for articles published in English between 2001 and 2010. Titles and abstracts were screened by one researcher according to the inclusion criteria. Papers were included if they assessed pharmacy staff or consumer attitudes towards pharmaceutical public health. Full papers identified for inclusion were assessed by a second researcher and data were extracted by one researcher. RESULTS From the 5628 papers identified, 63 studies in 67 papers were included. Pharmacy staff: Most pharmacists viewed public health services as important and part of their role but secondary to medicine related roles. Pharmacists' confidence in providing public health services was on the whole average to low. Time was consistently identified as a barrier to providing public health services. Lack of an adequate counselling space, lack of demand and expectation of a negative reaction from customers were also reported by some pharmacists as barriers. A need for further training was identified in relation to a number of public health services. Consumers: Most pharmacy users had never been offered public health services by their pharmacist and did not expect to be offered. Consumers viewed pharmacists as appropriate providers of public health advice but had mixed views on the pharmacists' ability to do this. Satisfaction was found to be high in those that had experienced pharmaceutical public health. CONCLUSIONS There has been little change in customer and pharmacist attitudes since reviews conducted nearly 10 years previously. In order to improve the public health services provided in community pharmacy, training must aim to increase pharmacists' confidence in providing these services. Confident, well trained pharmacists should be able to offer public health service more proactively which is likely to have a positive impact on customer attitudes and health

Pharmacist-supported medication review training for general practitioners: Feasibility and acceptability

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of training for general practitioners (GPs) in medication review provided by practice pharmacists. Methods: Within the setting of a Scottish Local Health Care Co-operative incorporating 17 general practices, practice pharmacists delivered a 1-hour practice-based group training session to interested GPs, covering a systematic approach to medication review and case studies. One session of funded locum cover was provided for each GP to review up to 6 patients of his or her choice. Practice pharmacists and GPs reviewed patient notes together before GPs saw patients alone. Subsequently pharmacists abstracted data from medical records. Medication-related issues identified during reviews and resultant actions were categorised. The views of GPs on the training were obtained by postal questionnaires. Results: Training was received by 51/74 GPs from 10/17 practices. In 174 reviews analysed, differences in patient medication use from computer records, ineffective medication and missing computer diagnoses were identified most frequently. There was a median of 5 actions per patient, including a median of 2 changes in prescribed drugs. Only 3 reviews resulted in no actions, while 80% of patients had at least 1 prescribing record change. A total of 27 (61%) GPs returned questionnaires; most considered medication review important and were satisfied with the training. Confidence in conducting reviews increased in 14 (52%) GPs. Many indicated they would increase reviews, but time was a barrier for almost all. Although few considered contract or accreditation to be motivating factors, most agreed the training would help them achieve standards for both. Conclusions: Training by pharmacists was feasible and acceptable, but time constraints may limit the translation of reviews into routine practice