药学利益相关者对高级或专科药剂师执业资格认证的看法和经验:混合方法系统回顾

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-10-11 DOI:10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100522
Evelyn Deasy , Anna Seoighe , Cristín Ryan , Stephen Byrne , Kieran Dalton
{"title":"药学利益相关者对高级或专科药剂师执业资格认证的看法和经验:混合方法系统回顾","authors":"Evelyn Deasy ,&nbsp;Anna Seoighe ,&nbsp;Cristín Ryan ,&nbsp;Stephen Byrne ,&nbsp;Kieran Dalton","doi":"10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Credentialing of advanced and specialist pharmacist practice (ASPP) provides essential quality assurance for ASPP, which is significantly different to entry-level practice and is developing worldwide. Several credentialing models are in place or under development internationally. Synthesis of the views and experiences of pharmacists and other relevant stakeholders on credentialing is an important research gap.</div></div><div><h3>Objective(s)</h3><div>To determine pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing and to explore facilitators and barriers to credentialing implementation and uptake.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews was followed. The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO. Five electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched from inception to August 2022 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies that reported the views and experiences of pharmacy stakeholders on ASPP credentialing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to quality appraise included studies. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to analyse and integrate data from included studies. All screening and data analysis steps were performed by two reviewers independently, with additional author input where required.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty studies were included, after screening titles and abstracts (<em>n</em> = 9055) and full texts (<em>n</em> = 228). Studies represented the views of pharmacists, pharmacy managers/employers and professional/representative bodies in hospital, community pharmacy, general practice/primary care, and academic sectors, from 40 countries. Four analytical themes were generated describing the factors, including facilitators and barriers, to be considered when developing or optimising ASPP credentialing: I. Drivers of credentialing, II. Developing ASPP competence, III. Optimising credentialing implementation, and IV. Enhancing credentialing uptake.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review is the first to synthesise pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing. A conceptual framework highlights contextual factors, facilitators, barriers, and inter-relationships which should be considered by pharmacists, policymakers, and other key stakeholders when implementing ASPP credentialing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73003,"journal":{"name":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100522"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of the credentialing of advanced or specialist pharmacist practice: A mixed methods systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn Deasy ,&nbsp;Anna Seoighe ,&nbsp;Cristín Ryan ,&nbsp;Stephen Byrne ,&nbsp;Kieran Dalton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Credentialing of advanced and specialist pharmacist practice (ASPP) provides essential quality assurance for ASPP, which is significantly different to entry-level practice and is developing worldwide. Several credentialing models are in place or under development internationally. Synthesis of the views and experiences of pharmacists and other relevant stakeholders on credentialing is an important research gap.</div></div><div><h3>Objective(s)</h3><div>To determine pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing and to explore facilitators and barriers to credentialing implementation and uptake.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews was followed. The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO. Five electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched from inception to August 2022 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies that reported the views and experiences of pharmacy stakeholders on ASPP credentialing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to quality appraise included studies. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to analyse and integrate data from included studies. All screening and data analysis steps were performed by two reviewers independently, with additional author input where required.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty studies were included, after screening titles and abstracts (<em>n</em> = 9055) and full texts (<em>n</em> = 228). Studies represented the views of pharmacists, pharmacy managers/employers and professional/representative bodies in hospital, community pharmacy, general practice/primary care, and academic sectors, from 40 countries. Four analytical themes were generated describing the factors, including facilitators and barriers, to be considered when developing or optimising ASPP credentialing: I. Drivers of credentialing, II. Developing ASPP competence, III. Optimising credentialing implementation, and IV. Enhancing credentialing uptake.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review is the first to synthesise pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing. A conceptual framework highlights contextual factors, facilitators, barriers, and inter-relationships which should be considered by pharmacists, policymakers, and other key stakeholders when implementing ASPP credentialing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100522\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624001197\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276624001197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景高级和专科药师执业(ASPP)的资格认证为高级和专科药师执业提供了重要的质量保证。国际上已有或正在开发几种资格认证模式。确定药学利益相关者对 ASPP 资格认证的看法和经验,并探讨实施和吸收资格认证的促进因素和障碍。综述方案已在 PROSPERO 上预先注册。在五个电子数据库(Medline、CINAHL、Embase、Web of Science、Google Scholar)中搜索了从开始到 2022 年 8 月报告药学利益相关者对 ASPP 认证的观点和经验的定性、定量或混合方法研究。混合方法评估工具用于对纳入的研究进行质量评估。对纳入研究的数据进行专题综合分析和整合。所有筛选和数据分析步骤均由两名审稿人独立完成,必要时由其他作者提供意见。结果在筛选了标题和摘要(n = 9055)以及全文(n = 228)之后,共纳入了 60 项研究。这些研究代表了来自 40 个国家的医院、社区药房、全科/初级保健和学术部门的药剂师、药房经理/雇主和专业/代表机构的观点。分析得出了四个主题,描述了在制定或优化 ASPP 资格认证时应考虑的因素,包括促进因素和障碍因素:I. 资格认证的驱动因素,II.培养 ASPP 能力,III.优化资格认证的实施,以及 IV.结论 本系统性综述首次综合了药学利益相关者对 ASPP 资格认证的看法和经验。概念框架强调了药剂师、政策制定者和其他主要利益相关者在实施 ASPP 资格认证时应考虑的背景因素、促进因素、障碍和相互关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of the credentialing of advanced or specialist pharmacist practice: A mixed methods systematic review

Background

Credentialing of advanced and specialist pharmacist practice (ASPP) provides essential quality assurance for ASPP, which is significantly different to entry-level practice and is developing worldwide. Several credentialing models are in place or under development internationally. Synthesis of the views and experiences of pharmacists and other relevant stakeholders on credentialing is an important research gap.

Objective(s)

To determine pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing and to explore facilitators and barriers to credentialing implementation and uptake.

Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews was followed. The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO. Five electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched from inception to August 2022 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies that reported the views and experiences of pharmacy stakeholders on ASPP credentialing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to quality appraise included studies. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to analyse and integrate data from included studies. All screening and data analysis steps were performed by two reviewers independently, with additional author input where required.

Results

Sixty studies were included, after screening titles and abstracts (n = 9055) and full texts (n = 228). Studies represented the views of pharmacists, pharmacy managers/employers and professional/representative bodies in hospital, community pharmacy, general practice/primary care, and academic sectors, from 40 countries. Four analytical themes were generated describing the factors, including facilitators and barriers, to be considered when developing or optimising ASPP credentialing: I. Drivers of credentialing, II. Developing ASPP competence, III. Optimising credentialing implementation, and IV. Enhancing credentialing uptake.

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first to synthesise pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing. A conceptual framework highlights contextual factors, facilitators, barriers, and inter-relationships which should be considered by pharmacists, policymakers, and other key stakeholders when implementing ASPP credentialing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
103 days
期刊最新文献
Exploring potential drug-drug interactions in discharge prescriptions: ChatGPT's effectiveness in assessing those interactions. Transitioning to quick response codes for patient information leaflet delivery. Barriers and facilitators to community pharmacist-provided injectable naltrexone for formerly incarcerated individuals during community reentry. A descriptive report on the impact of pharmacy workflows in the operational success of hospital at home implementation at a county academic hospital system. Effects of a community pharmacy cardiovascular practice transformation (CPT) program on blood pressure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1