研究人员参与药学的经历:一项英国横断面调查

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Pub Date : 2022-11-16 DOI:10.1093/jphsr/rmac049
Michelle Watson, C. Whittlesea, P. Tharmanathan
{"title":"研究人员参与药学的经历:一项英国横断面调查","authors":"Michelle Watson, C. Whittlesea, P. Tharmanathan","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmac049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n We aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers who have involved pharmacy professionals in research studies. Pharmacy teams are valued healthcare professionals, with a wide knowledge base and skill set. They have regular contact with service users who may be interested in research, placing them in a good position for collaboration with researchers.\n \n \n \n Cross-sectional survey circulated to researchers in the UK; analysed using descriptive, quantitative methods.\n \n \n \n A total of 238 responses were received from researchers, mainly within hospitals and universities. Most had more than 10 years of experience (45%) and had worked on 2–10 studies involving pharmacies (54%), frequently requiring hospital services (74%). Two-thirds of researchers had worked on clinical trials of investigational medicinal products. Most researchers worked with pharmacy teams that all had previous research experience (78%) yet did not involve them in participant recruitment (85%). Pharmacy staff frequently managed or dispensed medication (43%), however also engaged with other research-related tasks. Their previous experience and keenness were desirable qualities for researchers. Many respondents had a positive experience of collaboration and acknowledged various advantages (e.g. developing training/knowledge) and disadvantages (e.g. staffing issues).\n \n \n \n Researchers’ positive impression of working with the pharmacy sector bodes well for future collaborations. Many had experience with pharmacy, however, those more unfamiliar should consider the roles staff could perform; and pharmacy teams and professional bodies should advocate their involvement. For collaboration to prosper, we should promote the benefits of research engagement and consider how to overcome known challenges.\n","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Researchers’ experiences of pharmacy involvement: a UK cross-sectional survey\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Watson, C. Whittlesea, P. Tharmanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jphsr/rmac049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n We aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers who have involved pharmacy professionals in research studies. Pharmacy teams are valued healthcare professionals, with a wide knowledge base and skill set. They have regular contact with service users who may be interested in research, placing them in a good position for collaboration with researchers.\\n \\n \\n \\n Cross-sectional survey circulated to researchers in the UK; analysed using descriptive, quantitative methods.\\n \\n \\n \\n A total of 238 responses were received from researchers, mainly within hospitals and universities. Most had more than 10 years of experience (45%) and had worked on 2–10 studies involving pharmacies (54%), frequently requiring hospital services (74%). Two-thirds of researchers had worked on clinical trials of investigational medicinal products. Most researchers worked with pharmacy teams that all had previous research experience (78%) yet did not involve them in participant recruitment (85%). Pharmacy staff frequently managed or dispensed medication (43%), however also engaged with other research-related tasks. Their previous experience and keenness were desirable qualities for researchers. Many respondents had a positive experience of collaboration and acknowledged various advantages (e.g. developing training/knowledge) and disadvantages (e.g. staffing issues).\\n \\n \\n \\n Researchers’ positive impression of working with the pharmacy sector bodes well for future collaborations. Many had experience with pharmacy, however, those more unfamiliar should consider the roles staff could perform; and pharmacy teams and professional bodies should advocate their involvement. For collaboration to prosper, we should promote the benefits of research engagement and consider how to overcome known challenges.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":16705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmac049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们旨在探讨让药学专业人员参与研究的研究人员的经验和意见。药房团队是有价值的医疗保健专业人员,拥有广泛的知识基础和技能。他们定期与可能对研究感兴趣的服务用户联系,这使他们处于与研究人员合作的有利地位。向英国研究人员分发的横断面调查;使用描述性、定量方法进行分析。研究人员共收到238份回复,主要来自医院和大学。大多数人有超过10年的工作经验(45%),参与过2-10项涉及药房的研究(54%),经常需要医院服务(74%)。三分之二的研究人员从事过试验药物的临床试验。大多数研究人员与药房团队合作,这些团队都有过研究经验(78%),但没有参与参与者招募(85%)。药房工作人员经常管理或分配药物(43%),但也从事其他研究相关任务。他们以前的经验和敏锐是研究人员所期望的品质。许多受访者有积极的合作经验,并承认各种优势(如发展培训/知识)和劣势(如人员配置问题)。研究人员对与制药行业合作的积极印象预示着未来的合作。许多人都有药房的经验,然而,那些更不熟悉的人应该考虑员工可以扮演的角色;药房团队和专业机构应倡导他们的参与。为了促进合作,我们应该促进研究参与的好处,并考虑如何克服已知的挑战。
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
Researchers’ experiences of pharmacy involvement: a UK cross-sectional survey
We aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of researchers who have involved pharmacy professionals in research studies. Pharmacy teams are valued healthcare professionals, with a wide knowledge base and skill set. They have regular contact with service users who may be interested in research, placing them in a good position for collaboration with researchers. Cross-sectional survey circulated to researchers in the UK; analysed using descriptive, quantitative methods. A total of 238 responses were received from researchers, mainly within hospitals and universities. Most had more than 10 years of experience (45%) and had worked on 2–10 studies involving pharmacies (54%), frequently requiring hospital services (74%). Two-thirds of researchers had worked on clinical trials of investigational medicinal products. Most researchers worked with pharmacy teams that all had previous research experience (78%) yet did not involve them in participant recruitment (85%). Pharmacy staff frequently managed or dispensed medication (43%), however also engaged with other research-related tasks. Their previous experience and keenness were desirable qualities for researchers. Many respondents had a positive experience of collaboration and acknowledged various advantages (e.g. developing training/knowledge) and disadvantages (e.g. staffing issues). Researchers’ positive impression of working with the pharmacy sector bodes well for future collaborations. Many had experience with pharmacy, however, those more unfamiliar should consider the roles staff could perform; and pharmacy teams and professional bodies should advocate their involvement. For collaboration to prosper, we should promote the benefits of research engagement and consider how to overcome known challenges.
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
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
The revised patient attitudes to deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire: an investigation using a large anonymized database Evaluation of a structured pharmacist-led intervention on glycemic control in underprivileged diabetic patients: a randomized open-label trial Cross-sectional study of pharmacists’ knowledge and beliefs about human papillomavirus, its vaccines, and barriers related to vaccine administration Analysis of cancer drugs receiving FDA’s Accelerated Approval between 1992 and 2021 Navigating digital health: perspectives of Australian community pharmacists—a short communication
×
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