A qualitative study of community pharmacists' opinions on the provision of osteoporosis disease state management services in Malaysia

Background: Osteoporosis has significant impact on healthcare costs and quality of life. Amongst the models for collaborative disease state management services published internationally, there is sparse evidence regarding the role of community pharmacists in the provision of osteoporosis care. Hence, the aim of our study was to explore community pharmacists' opinions (including the barriers and facilitators) and scope of osteoporosis disease state management services by community pharmacists in Malaysia, informing a vision for developing these services. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups discussions were conducted with community pharmacists from October 2013 to July 2014. Three trained researchers interviewed the participants. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed thematically using an interpretative description approach. Results: Nineteen community pharmacists with 1-23 years of experience were recruited (in depth interviews: n = 9; focus group discussions: n = 10). These participants reflected on their experience with osteoporosis-related enquiries, which included medication counseling, bone density screening and referral of at-risk patients. Key barriers were the lack of numerous factors: public awareness of osteoporosis, accurate osteoporosis screening tools for community pharmacists, pharmacists' knowledge on osteoporosis disease and medications, time to counsel patients about bone health, collaboration between pharmacists and doctors, and support from the government and professional body. The pharmacists wanted more continuing education on osteoporosis, osteoporosis awareness campaigns, a simple, unbiased osteoporosis education material, and inter-professional collaboration practices with doctors, and pharmacists' reimbursement for osteoporosis care. Conclusions: The involvement of community pharmacists in the provision of osteoporosis disease state management was minimal. Only ad-hoc counseling on osteoporosis prevention was performed by community pharmacists. Development and trial of collaborative osteoporosis disease state management services in community pharmacy could be facilitated by training, support and remuneration

A national survey of U.S. pharmacists in 2000: Assessing nonresponse bias of a survey methodology

The first objective of this study was to assess the existence of nonresponse bias to a national survey of licensed pharmacists conducted in 2000. Three methods were used to assess nonresponse bias. The second objective of the study was to examine reasons why sampled licensed pharmacists did not respond to the national survey of licensed pharmacists. We used data from 2204 respondents to a national survey of pharmacists and from 521 respondents to a survey of nonrespondents to the national survey. We made comparisons between respondents for 5 variables: employment status, gender, age, highest academic degree, and year of initial licensure. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the 5 variables between respondents to the first mailing and second mailing of the survey, early and late respondents to the survey, and respondents to the survey and respondents to the nonrespondent survey. There were no significant differences between first mailing and second mailing respondents, but there were differences in each variable except year of licensure between early and late respondents. These differences likely were due to regional bias possibly related to differences in mailing times. There were differences between respondents and nonrespondents in terms of employment status and year of licensure. The main reasons for not responding to the survey were that it was too long or that it was too intrusive. Overall, the survey methodology resulted in a valid sample of licensed pharmacists. Nonresponse bias should be assessed by surveying nonrespondents. Future surveys of pharmacists should consider the length of the survey and the address where it is sent