Attitudes, barriers and facilitators of hospital pharmacists conducting practice‐based research: a systematic review

Predictors of confidence in research: a cross-sectional survey of pharmacists in the north of England

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacist-led research is key to optimizing medicines use and improving pharmacy services, yet it is not yet widely embedded into careers. This study aims to identify predictors of confidence in meeting the research learning outcomes in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) Post-Registration Foundation and Core Advanced curricula, to provide targeted recommendations for building research capability and capacity within the profession.

METHODS

The study was a cross-sectional electronic survey, distributed to eligible pharmacists in March 2023 (n = 253). The survey gathered demographic information, research experience, and self-reported confidence in meeting the research learning outcomes in the RPS Post-Registration Foundation and Core Advanced curricula. Pre-determined independent variables were analysed using two binomial logistic regression models (one per curriculum) to identify predictors of the dichotomous variable: confidence with meeting all research learning outcomes in that curriculum.

KEY FINDINGS

Participants were more likely to self-report as confident (versus not confident) with meeting all research learning outcomes in a curriculum if they had recent experience (within the previous 12 months) of research or research-related activities, held a postgraduate research qualification, had undertaken research training outside of a postgraduate qualification, discussed research in their appraisal, or worked in the hospital sector. Conversely, male gender, years practicing, and protected time for research did not predict confidence.

CONCLUSION

A targeted approach, including improving access to research methods training, experience-based learning, mentorship, and linking research projects to key organizational objectives, could be the key to developing research capability and capacity across all sectors and career stages.

Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector

Clinical trials (CTs) are essential for medical advancements but face significant challenges, particularly in professional training and role clarity. Principal investigators, clinical research coordinators (CRCs), nurses, clinical trial pharmacists, and monitors are key players. Each faces unique challenges, such as maintaining protocol compliance, managing investigational products, and ensuring data integrity. Clinical trials' complexity and evolving nature demand specialized and ongoing training for these professionals. Addressing these challenges requires clear role delineation, continuous professional development, and supportive workplace environments to improve retention and trial outcomes. Enhanced training programs and a collaborative approach are essential for the successful conduct of clinical trials and the advancement of medical research.

Application of the COM-B model to explore barriers and facilitators to participation in research by hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians: A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey

BACKGROUND

Combining research and clinical practice is crucial for advancing evidence-based healthcare and improving pharmacy service delivery. While hospital pharmacists report significant interest in research, this does not translate to high levels of research engagement. Furthermore, little is known regarding barriers and motivators for pharmacy technician involvement in research.

OBJECTIVE

To characterise the barriers and enablers to engaging in practice-based research reported by hospital pharmacy staff using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) framework.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey, using the validated Research Capacity in Context tool, was sent to all employees of a statewide hospital pharmacy service. Respondent characteristics and quantitatively reported barriers and motivators were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from open text responses were analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Results were mapped to the components of the COM-B framework at individual, team and organisation levels.

RESULTS

278 responses were received (response rate 43.3%) from pharmacists (68.0%) and pharmacy assistants/technicians (28.4%) across 19 hospitals. Research behaviour was influenced by factors linked to five of six COM-B subdomains. Reflective motivation, linked to a desire to improve practice and patient care, self-development, and recognition, indicates pharmacy staff would like to engage in research. However, barriers related to physical opportunity (lack of time for research, other work roles that take priority) and psychological capability (lack of skills and mentorship) hindered involvement. Social opportunity and automatic motivation, tied to managerial support, role perceptions and departmental research culture were also reported facilitators. Subtle differences in the factors that motivate hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Mapping factors associated with research participation by hospital pharmacy staff to the COM-B model is an important step towards identifying evidence-based intervention types that could form the basis of strategies to optimise hospital pharmacy staff engagement with practice-based research, using the behaviour change wheel.

The Internal Reliability and Construct Validity of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ): Evidence from Healthcare Professionals in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Fostering a culture of clinical effectiveness among healthcare professionals (HCPs) is crucial to achieving optimal patient health outcomes. To our knowledge, there is a lack of robust evidence-based practice (EBP) tools to assess the competence of HCPs in EBP in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR).

AIM

This study aims to comprehensively investigate the construct validity and internal reliability of the evidence-based practice questionnaire (EBPQ) among HCPs in the EMR.

METHODS

This multinational and multi-disciplinary cross-sectional study was conducted between 27 April and 11 May 2023. Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit a sample of HCPs (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, and pharmacists) using an electronic survey questionnaire for data capture. To assess the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's alpha, inter-item reliability, and split-half reliability analyses were conducted. Furthermore, the convergent and discriminant validity of the questionnaire was ensured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) and the correlation coefficient between the different constructs, respectively. Factor loadings and cross-loadings of different indicators within each construct were calculated by performing both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1536 HCPs from 18 countries in the EMR (response rate = 96.786%) with a median age of 28 years participated; 47% were female, and 55% had Arabic as their first language. English was the most common language for a bachelor's degree in science (54%). The construct validity of the EBPQ was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which yielded four loaded factors. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the four loaded factors. The CFA model showed that the root mean square error of approximation = 0.066, comparative fit index = 0.95, Tucker-Lewis's index = 0.94, standardized root mean square residual = 0.033, normal fit index = 0.94, goodness of fit = 0.91, and χ2 test statistic= 22,553, with p < 0.001. The AVE values of the four factors were close to 1 (knowledge = 0.6, practice = 0.6, attitude = 0.5, and sharing = 0.7), thus supporting the convergent validity of the EBPQ. The four domains had Cronbach's alpha coefficients and Omega ≥ 0.7 (knowledge = 0.9, practice = 0.9, attitude = 0.7, and sharing = 0.8), suggesting that the items within each domain had good internal consistency. These results support the discriminant validity of the EBPQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The EBPQ is a robust questionnaire that can be completed in less than 10 min by EMR HCPs and can be used as a gold-standard questionnaire to collect valid data on the attitudes, knowledge, and proficiency of HCPs in making clinical decisions based on evidence. Future studies are recommended to investigate the retest reliability.

Evaluation of research capacity and culture of hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in a state-wide Australian public health service: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Integrating research with clinical practice is essential for evidence-based practice and continuous improvement in health care. Little is known about the research capacity and culture of the Australian hospital pharmacy workforce, particularly in rural areas and for pharmacy assistants/technicians.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to characterise the research capacity and culture of a state-wide public-hospital pharmacy service at organisation, team and individual levels, and to explore variables which influence research confidence and success.

METHOD

An online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey using the validated Research Capacity in Context tool was emailed to all pharmacists, pharmacy assistants/technicians and non-clinical staff employed by a statewide pharmacy service in South Australia. Respondent characteristics and organisation, team and individual scores of research skill/success were summarised using descriptive statistics. T-tests compared results for pharmacists and pharmacy assistants/technicians and metropolitan-based and non-metropolitan-based staff. Regression analyses explored predictors of pharmacists individual research skill/success scores.

RESULTS

A response rate of 43.4% (n = 278/641, 19 sites) was obtained. Respondents were primarily pharmacists (68%) and pharmacy assistants/technicians (28%); 91% were practicing in a metropolitan setting. 47% reported no research experience. Highest scores for research skill/success were observed at the organisational level (mean score 6.0/10) vs. team (mean score 5.6/10) and individual levels (mean score 5.1/10). Within each level specific items that scored poorly were identified. Individual research skills/success scores were higher in pharmacists vs. pharmacy assistants/technicians (mean score 5.2/10 vs. 4.2/10, p < 0.01), and were not different between staff in metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan settings (mean scores 5.2 vs. 5.0, p = 0.77). For pharmacists, undertaking undergraduate or internship research projects or postgraduate research training were associated with higher individual scores of research skills and success.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This research extends understanding of hospital pharmacy research capacity and culture, describes research skills and success in hospital pharmacy technicians/assistants for the first time and highlights low-scoring areas; these could be targeted to improve research capacity and culture at an individual, team and organisational levels.