Validation of the Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index for physicians in Malaysia
- 218 Downloads
Background Establishing a collaborative working relationship between doctors and pharmacists is essential for the effective provision of pharmaceutical care. The Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index (PPCI) was developed to assess the professional exchanges between doctors and pharmacists. Two versions of the PPCI was developed: one for physicians and one for pharmacists. However, these instruments have not been validated in Malaysia. Objective To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia. Setting An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Methods This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a “collaborator” or a “non-collaborator”. Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later. Main outcome measure Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test–retest) of the PPCI for physicians. Results A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. “Collaborators” had significantly higher scores compared to “non-collaborators” (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test–retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752. Conclusion The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors’ views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.
KeywordsCollaboration Hospitals Interprofessional relations Malaysia Pharmacists Physicians
We would like to express our appreciation to all the participants for agreeing to spend time participating in this study despite their busy schedule. Many thanks to the pharmacists who helped us in identifying the doctors who were in collaboration with them. Finally, we would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Karuthan Chinna from the University of Malaya who provided assistance in data analysis and interpretation.
This study was funded by University of Malaya Postgraduate Research Grant PV018/2012A.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Abdelhamid E, Awad A, Gismallah A. Evaluation of a hospital pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care services for asthma patients. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2008;6(1):25–32.Google Scholar
- 4.Chung WW, Chua SS, Lai PS, Chan SP. Effects of a pharmaceutical care model on medication adherence and glycemic control of people with type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer Adher. 2014;8:1185–94.Google Scholar
- 5.Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in heart failure events by the addition of a clinical pharmacist to the heart failure management team: results of the Pharmacist in Heart Failure Assessment Recommendation and Monitoring (PHARM) Study. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(16):1939–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.McDonough RP, Doucette WR. Dynamics of pharmaceutical care: developing collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and physicians. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2001;41(5):682–92.Google Scholar
- 16.Zillich AJ, Milchak JL, Carter BL, Doucette WR. Utility of a questionnaire to measure physician–pharmacist collaborative relationships. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2006;46(4):453–8.Google Scholar
- 17.Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grim GL, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. p. 99–136. ISBN 9781557982735.Google Scholar
- 20.Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2005. ISBN 9780130329295.Google Scholar
- 22.Cohen J. Stastical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1988. ISBN 9780805802832.Google Scholar
- 24.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistic. 5th ed. Boston: Ally & Bacon; 2007. ISBN 9780205459384.Google Scholar
- 25.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar