Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 511–521 | Cite as

Building hospital pharmacy practice research capacity in Qatar: a cross-sectional survey of hospital pharmacists

  • Derek StewartEmail author
  • Moza Al Hail
  • P. V. Abdul Rouf
  • Wessam El Kassem
  • Lesley Diack
  • Binny Thomas
  • Ahmed Awaisu
Research Article

Abstract

Background There is a need to systematically develop research capacity within pharmacy practice. Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) is the principal non-profit health care provider in Qatar. Traditionally, pharmacists in Qatar have limited training related to research and lack direct experience of research processes. Objectives To determine the interests, experience and confidence of hospital pharmacists employed by HMC, Qatar in relation to research, attitudes towards research, and facilitators and barriers. Setting Hospital pharmacy, Qatar. Method A cross-sectional survey of all pharmacists (n = 401). Responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and principal component analysis (PCA). Main outcome measures Interests, experience and confidence in research; attitudes towards research; and facilitators and barriers to participation in research. Results The response rate was 53.1 % (n = 213). High levels of interest were expressed for all aspects of research, with respondents less experienced and less confident. Summary scores for items of interest were significantly higher than experience and confidence (p < 0.001). PCA identified four components: general attitudes towards research; confidence, motivation and resources; research culture; and support. While respondents were generally positive in response to all items, they were less sure of resources to conduct research, access to training and statistical support. They were also generally unsure of many aspects relating to research culture. Half (50.7 %, n = 108) had either never thought about being involved in research or taken no action. In multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, the significant factors were possessing postgraduate qualifications [odds ratio (OR) 3.48 (95 % CI 1.73–6.99), p < 0.001] and having more positive general attitudes to research [OR 3.24 (95 % CI 1.62–4.67), p = 0.001]. Almost all (89.7 %, n = 172) expressed interest in being involved in research training. Conclusion HMC pharmacists expressed significantly higher levels of interest in research compared to experience and confidence. While general attitudes towards research were positive, there were some barriers relating to support (e.g. administration) and research culture. Positive attitudes towards research and possessing postgraduate qualifications were significant in relation to readiness to participate in research and research training. Findings are of key relevance when considering the aims of research capacity building of encouraging research, improving skills and identifying skills gaps.

Keywords

Hospital pharmacy Qatar Questionnaire Research capacity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the following for their contribution and support provided throughout this research: Dr. L. McHattie (research design); Dr. M. Bashir, Dr. S. Lutfi, Dr. N. Kheir, Dr. R. Singh, Dr. Wilby, Dr. K. MacLure, Dr. H. Vosper (questionnaire review); E. Watson (E-technology support); all study respondents.

Funding

Funding was provided by Hamad Medical Corporation.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

11096_2015_87_MOESM1_ESM.docx (184 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 184 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J. 1996;7023:712.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Department for International Development. Capacity building in research. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/187568/HTN_Capacity_Building_Final_21_06_10.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  3. 3.
    Cooke J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6(1):44.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyd A, Cole DC, Cho DB, Aslanyan G, Bates I. Frameworks for evaluating health research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:46.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knapp KK, Manolakis M, Webster AA, Olsen KM. Projected growth in pharmacy education and research, 2010 to 2015. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(6):108.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenbloom K, Taylor K, Harding G. Community pharmacists’ attitudes towards research. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8(2):103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peterson G, Jackson SL, Fitzmaurice KD, Gee PR. Attitudes of Australian pharmacists towards practice based research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2009;34:397–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger R. EBP: practitioners in search of evidence. J Soc Work. 2010;10:175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey D, Plummer D, Pighills A, Pain T. Practitioner research capacity: a survey of social workers in Northern Queensland. Aust Soc Work. 2013;66(4):540–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pager S, Holden L, Golenko X. Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity. J Multidiscip Health. 2012;5:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finch E, Cornwell P, Ward EC, McPhail SM. Factors influencing research engagement: research interest, confidence and experience in an Australian speech-language pathology workforce. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):144.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salmon P, Peters S, Rogers A, Gask L, Clifford R, Iredale W, Morriss R. Peering through the barriers in GPs’ explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract. 2007;24:269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMaster R, Jammali-Blasi A, Andersson-Noorgard K, Cooper K, McInnes E. Research involvement, support needs, and factors affecting research participation: a survey of Mental Health Consultation Liaison Nurses. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2013;22(2):154–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamad Medical Corporation. Available at http://www.hmc.org.qa/. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  15. 15.
    Elkassem W, Pallivalapila A, McHattie L, Al Hail M, Diack L, Stewart D. Advancing the pharmacy practice research agenda: views and experiences of pharmacists in Qatar. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35:692–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts G. SET for Success: ‘the Report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review’, 2002. Available at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/skills/IndependentReviewHodge.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  17. 17.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003. ISBN 9780743222099.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;2(1):38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prochaska JM, Prochaska JO, Levesque DA. A transtheoretical approach to changing organizations. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2001;28(4):247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Stein J, Gates S, Lamb SE. Maximising response to questionnaires—a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. California: Sage Publications; 1991. ISBN 9781412980449.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saris WE, Revilla M, Krosnick JA, Shae EM. Comparing questions with agree/disagree response options to questions with item-specific response options. Surv Res Methods. 2010;4(1):61–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Stewart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Moza Al Hail
    • 2
  • P. V. Abdul Rouf
    • 3
  • Wessam El Kassem
    • 3
  • Lesley Diack
    • 1
  • Binny Thomas
    • 3
  • Ahmed Awaisu
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Pharmacy and Life SciencesRobert Gordon UniversityAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Hamad Medical CorporationDohaQatar
  3. 3.Women’s HospitalHamad Medical CorporationDohaQatar
  4. 4.College of PharmacyQatar UniversityDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations