Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct 18:16:100529.
doi: 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100529. eCollection 2024 Dec.

Construction and validation of an instrument to identify barriers to implementing pharmaceutical care

Affiliations

Construction and validation of an instrument to identify barriers to implementing pharmaceutical care

Luanna Gabriella Resende da Silva et al. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. .

Abstract

Background: Pharmaceutical Care is a professional practice in high demand for implementation in Primary Health Care within the Public Health System. Consequently, it was necessary to develop and validate an instrument to assess the obstacles to this process.

Methods: A methodological study was conducted in three stages: first, the questionnaire was developed based on the APOTECA framework, which includes Attitudinal, Political, Technical, and Administrative domains. Second, the content was validated using the Delphi Technique, with a content validity coefficient greater than or equal to 0.8 considered acceptable. Third, a pre-test was conducted with pharmacists working in Primary Health Care within the Public Health System. After validation, the instrument was administered to pharmacists participating in a training and support project for the implementation of Pharmaceutical Care.

Results: The results indicated that the instrument was validated after two rounds of evaluation, with the first round involving 33 experts achieving a total content validity coefficient of 96 %, and the second round involving 18 experts achieving a total content validity coefficient of 98 %. In the third stage, the pre-test with Primary Health Care pharmacists resulted in a total content validity coefficient of 91 %. The final version of the questionnaire, which incorporated suggestions for improvements, included 19 questions. When answered by pharmacists, the responses indicated that Technical questions were the most significant barrier to implementation, followed by Political, Attitudinal, and Administrative questions.

Conclusion: The validation of this instrument provides an important tool for identifying factors that hinder the implementation of Pharmaceutical Care within the Public Health System.

Keywords: Evidence-based pharmaceutical practice; Pharmaceutical care; Public health system; Validation study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Unlabelled Image
Graphical abstract
Chart 1
Chart 1
Questions intended for pharmacist judges, to evaluate the instrument regarding the language, relevance, and maintenance of questions in each block, 2023. Source: prepared by the authors.
Chart 2
Chart 2
Questions aimed at pharmacists working in Primary Care of the Brazilian Public Health System, 2023. Source: prepared by the authors.
Chart 3
Chart 3
Changes made to the questionnaire “Instrument for evaluating potential hindering factors for the implementation of Pharmaceutical Care within the scope of the Public Health System (SUS)”, after the first round, 2023 (n = 33). Source: prepared by the authors.
Chart 4
Chart 4
Changes made to the questionnaire “Tool for evaluating potential hindering factors for implementing Pharmaceutical Care within the scope of the Public Health System (SUS)”, after the second round, 2023 (n = 18). Source: prepared by the authors.

References

    1. McKenzie C., Spriet I., Hunfeld N. Ten reasons for the presence of pharmacy professionals in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2024;50:147–149. doi: 10.1007/s00134-023-07285-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Phimarn W., Saramunee K., Leelathanalerk A., et al. Economic evaluation of pharmacy services: a systematic review of the literature (2016–2020) Int J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;45:1326–1348. doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01590-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sallom H., Abdi A., Halboup A.M., Başgut B. Evaluation of pharmaceutical care services in the Middle East countries: a review of studies of 2013–2020. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:1364. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16199-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Forgerini M., Lucchetta R.C., Oliveira F.M., Herdeiro M.T., Capela M.V., Mastroianni P.C. Impact of pharmacist intervention in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2022;58 doi: 10.1590/s2175-97902022e19876. - DOI
    1. Merks P., Religioni U., Jaguszewski M., et al. Patient satisfaction survey of “healthy heart” pharmaceutical care service – evaluation of pharmacy labelling with pharmaceutical pictograms. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:962. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09986-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources