Cited by 9Pharmacy and Medical PracticesClinical practice guidelines implementationHealthcare Quality and Management

Do pharmacy practice standards effectively describe behaviour? Reviewing practice standards using a behavioural specificity framework

Open access
Mill, Deanna, Page, Amy, Johnson, Jacinta, Lee, Kenneth, Salter, Sandra M., Seubert, Liza, Clifford, Rhonda, D’Lima, Danielle·2022·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and practice standards exist to communicate the conduct and behaviour expected of health care professionals and ensure consistent quality practice. It is important that they describe behaviours explicitly so they can be interpreted, enacted and measured with ease. The AACTT framework specifies behaviour in terms of the: Action to be performed, Actor who performs the action, Context where the action occurs, Target who the action is performed with/for and Time when the action is performed (AACTT). It provides the most up to date framework for specifying behaviours and is particularly relevant to complex behavioural problems that involve sequences of behaviours performed by different people. Behavioural specificity within pharmacy practice standards has not been explored. AIM: To determine if behaviours described in the Professional Practice Standards for Australian Pharmacists specify Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time. METHODS: Two researchers independently reviewed the scope and structure of the practice standards and one extracted action statements (behaviours) verbatim. Through an iterative process, the researchers modified and developed the existing AACTT definitions to operationalise them for application to review of the action statements in the practice standards. The operational definitions, decision criteria and curated examples were combined in a codebook. The definitions were consistently applied through a directed content analysis approach to evaluate all extracted action statements by one researcher. For consistency 20% was independently checked for agreement by a second researcher. RESULTS: A novel codebook to apply AACTT criteria to evaluate practice standards was developed. Application of this codebook identified 768 independent behaviours. Of these, 300 (39%) described at least one discrete observable action, none specified an actor, 25 (3%) specified context, 131 (17%) specified target and 88 (11%) specified time. CONCLUSION(S): The behaviours detailed in practice standards for Australian pharmacists do not consistently specify behaviours in terms of Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time. Developers in the pharmacy profession, and beyond, should consider the behavioural specificity of their documents to improve interpretability, usability and adherence to the behaviours detailed. This also has implications for the development and evaluation of interventions to change such behaviours and improve quality of care.

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 · 10.1186/s12913-021-07358-4

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [25]Francis JJ Presseau J Health Care Practitioner Behaviour Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine [Internet] 2019 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 325 328

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mill, D., Page, A., Johnson, J., Lee, K., Salter, S. M., Seubert, L., Clifford, R., & D’Lima, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Mill, Deanna
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2022-01-14
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
71-71
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205229614
Cited by
9
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1156892)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
pharmacy practice standards, professional practice standards, codebook generation, quality of care, professional guidelines
MeSH terms
Australia, Humans, Pharmaceutical Services, Pharmacies, Pharmacists, Pharmacy

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