Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy 

About: Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy is an academic journal published by Elsevier BV. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Pharmacy & Pharmacist. It has an ISSN identifier of 1551-7411. Over the lifetime, 2425 publications have been published receiving 37048 citations. The journal is also known as: Research in social & administrative pharmacy & RSAP.

Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications

Abstract: Evaluations of interrater agreement and interrater reliability can be applied to a number of different contexts and are frequently encountered in social and administrative pharmacy research. The objectives of this study were to highlight key differences between interrater agreement and interrater reliability; describe the key concepts and approaches to evaluating interrater agreement and interrater reliability; and provide examples of their applications to research in the field of social and administrative pharmacy. This is a descriptive review of interrater agreement and interrater reliability indices. It outlines the practical applications and interpretation of these indices in social and administrative pharmacy research. Interrater agreement indices assess the extent to which the responses of 2 or more independent raters are concordant. Interrater reliability indices assess the extent to which raters consistently distinguish between different responses. A number of indices exist, and some common examples include Kappa, the Kendall coefficient of concordance, Bland-Altman plots, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Guidance on the selection of an appropriate index is provided. In conclusion, selection of an appropriate index to evaluate interrater agreement or interrater reliability is dependent on a number of factors including the context in which the study is being undertaken, the type of variable under consideration, and the number of raters making assessments.

Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity.

Abstract: The assessment of content validity is a critical and complex step in the development process of instruments which are frequently used to measure complex constructs in social and administrative pharmacy research. The aims of this study were to investigate the elements of content validity; to describe a practical approach for assessing content validity; and to discuss existing content validity indices. This is a narrative review of the assessment and quantification of content validity. It describes the key stages of conducting the content validation study and discusses the quantification and evaluation of the content validity estimates. Content validity provides evidence about the degree to which elements of an assessment instrument are relevant to and representative of the targeted construct for a particular assessment purpose. The assessment of content validity relies on using a panel of experts to evaluate instrument elements and rate them based on their relevance and representativeness to the content domain. It is a three-stage process that includes; the development stage, judgment and quantifying stage, and revising and reconstruction stage. To quantify the expert judgments, several indices have been discussed in this paper such as the content validity ratio (CVR), content validity index (CVI), modified-Kappa, and some agreement indices. A practical guide describes the process of content validity evaluation is provided. In summary, content validation processes and content validity indices are essential factors in the instrument development process, should be treated and reported as important as other types of construct validation. Determining item CVI and reporting an overall CVI are important components necessary to instruments especially when the instrument is used to measure health outcomes or to guide a clinical decision making. Content validity deserves a rigorous assessment process as the obtained information from this process are invaluable for the quality of the newly developed instrument.

Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling.

Abstract: Background Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a popular analysis technique because of the wide range of questions that it can help answer. There are several pieces of information specific to SEM that should be reported when this technique is used. Objectives To demonstrate a basic framework for reporting SEM analyses, to provide definitions of key terms readers will encounter, and to illustrate 2 examples for reporting SEM results. Methods Data from 650 participants who completed 3 self-report surveys were used to test a confirmatory factor analysis and a structural model as examples of information to be reported. Results The results displayed are requisite information for any SEM analysis. Conclusions It is important for investigators to provide this information so that readers can properly evaluate the results and conclusions based on the analyses.

Pharmacist services provided in general practice clinics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background Integration of pharmacists into primary care general practice clinics has the potential to improve interdisciplinary teamwork and patient care; however this practice is not widespread. Objective The aim of this study was to review the effectiveness of clinical pharmacist services delivered in primary care general practice clinics. Methods A systematic review of English language randomized controlled trials cited in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts was conducted. Studies were included if pharmacists had a regular and ongoing relationship with the clinic; delivered an intervention aimed at optimizing prescribing for, and/or medication use by, clinic patients; and were physically present within the clinic for all or part of the intervention, or for communication with staff. The search generated 1484 articles. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria, 131 articles remained. A total of 38 studies were included in the review and assessed for quality. Seventeen studies had common endpoints (blood pressure, glycosylated hemoglobin, cholesterol and/or Framingham risk score) and were included in meta-analyses. Results Twenty-nine of the 38 studies recruited patients with specific medical conditions, most commonly cardiovascular disease (15 studies) and/or diabetes (9 studies). The remaining 9 studies recruited patients at general risk of medication misadventure. Pharmacist interventions usually involved medication review (86.8%), with or without other activities delivered collaboratively with the general practitioner (family physician). Positive effects on primary outcomes related to medication use or clinical outcomes were reported in 19 studies, mixed effects in six studies, and no effect in 13 studies. The results of meta-analyses favored the pharmacist intervention, with significant improvements in blood pressure, glycosylated hemoglobin, cholesterol and Framingham risk score in intervention patients compared to control patients. Conclusions Pharmacists co-located in general practice clinics delivered a range of interventions, with favorable results in various areas of chronic disease management and quality use of medicines.

Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations.

Abstract: Background Readability formulas are often used to guide the development and evaluation of literacy-sensitive written health information. However, readability formula results may vary considerably as a result of differences in software processing algorithms and how each formula is applied. These variations complicate interpretations of reading grade level estimates, particularly without a uniform guideline for applying and interpreting readability formulas. Objectives This research sought to (1) identify commonly used readability formulas reported in the health care literature, (2) demonstrate the use of the most commonly used readability formulas on written health information, (3) compare and contrast the differences when applying common readability formulas to identical selections of written health information, and (4) provide recommendations for choosing an appropriate readability formula for written health-related materials to optimize their use. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify the most commonly used readability formulas in health care literature. Each of the identified formulas was subsequently applied to word samples from 15 unique examples of written health information about the topic of depression and its treatment. Readability estimates from common readability formulas were compared based on text sample size, selection, formatting, software type, and/or hand calculations. Recommendations for their use were provided. Results The Flesch-Kincaid formula was most commonly used (57.42%). Readability formulas demonstrated variability up to 5 reading grade levels on the same text. The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula performed most consistently. Depending on the text sample size, selection, formatting, software, and/or hand calculations, the individual readability formula estimated up to 6 reading grade levels of variability. Conclusions The SMOG formula appears best suited for health care applications because of its consistency of results, higher level of expected comprehension, use of more recent validation criteria for determining reading grade level estimates, and simplicity of use. To improve interpretation of readability results, reporting reading grade level estimates from any formula should be accompanied with information about word sample size, location of word sampling in the text, formatting, and method of calculation.