CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Pharmacy and Medical PracticesPatient Dignity and PrivacyHealth, Medicine and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Privacy and confidentiality: perspectives of mental health consumers and carers in pharmacy settings

Open access
Hattingh, Hendrika Laetitia, Knox, Kathy, Fejzic, Jasmina, McConnell, Denise, Fowler, Jane L, Mey, Amary, Kelly, Fiona, Wheeler, Amanda J·2015·International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
DOI 10.1111/ijpp.12114
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to explore within the community pharmacy practice context the views of mental health stakeholders on: (1) current and past experiences of privacy, confidentiality and support; and (2) expectations and needs in relation to privacy and confidentiality. Methods: In-depth interviews and focus groups were conducted in three states in Australia, namely Queensland, the northern region of New South Wales and Western Australia, between December 2011 and March 2012. Key findings: There were 98 participants consisting of consumers and carers (n = 74), health professionals (n = 13) and representatives from consumer organisations (n = 11). Participants highlighted a need for improved staff awareness. Consumers indicated a desire to receive information in a way that respects their privacy and confidentiality, in an appropriate space. Areas identified that require improved protection of privacy and confidentiality during pharmacy interactions were the number of staff having access to sensitive information, workflow models causing information exposure and pharmacies' layout not facilitating private discussions. Challenges experienced by carers created feelings of isolation which could impact on care. Conclusions: This study explored mental health stakeholders' experiences and expectations regarding privacy and confidentiality in the Australian community pharmacy context. A need for better pharmacy staff training about the importance of privacy and confidentiality and strategies to enhance compliance with national pharmacy practice requirements was identified. Findings provided insight into privacy and confidentiality needs and will assist in the development of pharmacy staff training material to better support consumers with sensitive conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijpp.12114

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Confidentiality and anonymity are a particular concern for mental health tool users, given the stigma associated with mental ill-health.

    “Further, confidentiality and anonymity are a particular concern for mental health tool users, given the stigma associated with mental ill-health [24,25]”

    From Providing Self-Led Mental Health Support Through an Artificial Intelligence–Powered Chat Bot (Leora) to Meet the Demand of Mental Health Care (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction links stigma associated with mental illness to a particular need for sensitive handling of privacy and confidentiality. “Pharmacy is a Public Space” reports consumers’ concerns about anonymity when collecting medication. The study concerns pharmacy consumers and carers, however, not mental health tool users, so it does not establish the claim for that setting. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. National Mental Health Consumer & Carer Forum (NMHCCF), 2011, Privacy, confidentiality & information sharing – consumers, carers & clinicians
  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012, Australia's Health 2012
  3. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2012, PBS and your prescription medicines
  4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010, Australia's health 2010: In brief
  5. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, Fourth National Mental Health Plan: An Agenda for Collaborative Government Action in Mental Health 2009–2014
  6. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, 2010, Professional Practice Standards
  7. Pharmacy Board of Queensland, 2007, Guidelines on Pharmacy and Confidentiality
  8. Australian Government, 1988, Commonwealth Privacy Act
  9. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, 2011, Code of ethics for pharmacists: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, 1
  10. Gilbert, 1996, Pharmacy Rural Health Project Report May 1996: Report of a project optimising the health impact of rural and remote pharmacists on the communities they serve
  11. Consumers' Health Forum of Australia, 1995, Pharmaceuticals Project – Final Report
  12. Dunphy, 2005, The Final Report of the Change Management and Community Pharmacy Project
  13. Bell, 2000, Societal perspectives on the role of the community pharmacist and community based pharmaceutical services, J Soc Adm Pharm, 17, 119
  14. SANE Media Centre, 2011, Stigma hurtful and common for people with mental illness
  15. SANE Media Centre, 2007, Stigma of mental illness means people reluctant to seek treatment
  16. Buetow, 2007, Health Research Methods: A Tabular Presentation, 168
  17. Department of Health and Ageing, 2012, The Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Program Specific Guidelines MedsCheck and Diabetes MedsCheck
  18. Pharmacy Board of Australia, 2012, Pharmacy code of conduct for registered health practitioners

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hattingh, H. L., Knox, K., Fejzic, J., McConnell, D., Fowler, J. L., Mey, A., Kelly, F., & Wheeler, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
  • Griffith University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-04-25
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
52-60
ISSN
  • 0961-7671 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-7174
DOI
10.1111/ijpp.12114
OpenAlex
W1582532190
Cited by
44
References
26
Citations by year
2024: 10 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Government Department of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Patient Dignity and Privacy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
privacy, confidentiality, mental health service users, caregivers, community pharmacy, pharmacy staff training, sensitive data, information exposure, workflow model, pharmacy layout, isolation, customer expectations
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Community Pharmacy Services, Confidentiality, Consumer Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Caregivers, Focus Groups, Privacy, Needs Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review