Adoption of a biometric screening service in community pharmacies: A qualitative study

被引:5
作者
Teeter, Benjamin S. [1 ]
Braxton-Lloyd, Kimberly [2 ]
Armenakis, Achilles A. [3 ]
Fox, Brent I. [1 ]
Westrick, Salisa C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Auburn Univ, Dept Hlth Outcomes Res & Policy, Harrison Sch Pharm, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
[2] Auburn Univ, Pharmaceut Care Ctr, Harrison Sch Pharm, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
[3] Auburn Univ, Dept Management, Raymond J Harbert Coll Business, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
关键词
Adoption; implementation; innovation attributes; organization characteristics; biometric health screenings; qualitative analysis; INNOVATIONS; DIFFUSION;
D O I
10.1331/JAPhA.2014.13203
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objective: To explore differences in perceived attributes of biometric screening services and organization characteristics among community pharmacies that adopt, outsource, or do not adopt biometric screening services that assess patients' blood pressure, blood glucose, serum cholesterol, and body mass index. Design: Qualitative, comparative analysis. Setting: Independently owned community pharmacies in Alabama. Participants: 25 key informants from community pharmacies were classified as adopters, outsourced adopters, and nonadopters of biometric screening services. Pharmacies using in-house staff to conduct screenings are referred to as adopters; those using external staff are referred to as outsourced adopters. Main outcome measures: Perceived attributes of the screening service and organizational characteristics identified through emergent theme analysis based on the Diffusion of Innovations Model and Model of Innovation Assimilation. Results: The screening service was perceived differently by adopters, outsourced adopters, and nonadopters. Adopters saw the opportunity to increase revenue and expand the role of the pharmacist in health care by offering the service. Adopters also perceived the service to be compatible with their pharmacy layout and organizational identity; simple to implement; modifiable in terms of experimentation with models of service delivery; and visible by external constituencies (which positively affects pharmacy image). In contrast, nonadopters felt the amount of time, investment, and lack of potential patients associated with the service influenced their decision not to adopt it. Adopters and nonadopters differed in regard to their innovativeness in patient care services, their connectedness in professional networks, and how they make sense of and deal with the uncertainty of new programs. Outsourced adopters were similar to adopters but were more cautious in their decision making. Conclusion: Perceived attributes of the screening service and organizational characteristics differed among adopters, outsourced adopters, and nonadopters.
引用
收藏
页码:258 / 266
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   INSTITUTIONAL AND COMPETITIVE BANDWAGONS - USING MATHEMATICAL-MODELING AS A TOOL TO EXPLORE INNOVATION DIFFUSION [J].
ABRAHAMSON, E ;
ROSENKOPF, L .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1993, 18 (03) :487-517
[2]  
COLEMAN J, 1959, J Chronic Dis, V9, P1, DOI 10.1016/0021-9681(59)90134-1
[3]   INCOMPLETE PROFESSIONALIZATION - CASE OF PHARMACY [J].
DENZIN, NK .
SOCIAL FORCES, 1968, 46 (03) :375-381
[4]  
Denzin NK., 2005, SAGE HDB QUALITATIVE
[5]  
Dopson S, 2001, J Health Serv Res Policy, V6, P23, DOI 10.1258/1355819011927161
[6]   Organizational factors influencing pharmacy practice change [J].
Doucette, William R. ;
Nevins, Justin C. ;
Gaither, Caroline ;
Kreling, David H. ;
Mott, David A. ;
Pedersen, Craig A. ;
Schommer, Jon C. .
RESEARCH IN SOCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY, 2012, 8 (04) :274-284
[7]  
Gilbert L, 2001, CURR SOCIOL, V49, P22
[8]  
Greenhalgh T., 2007, Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review
[9]  
Heron Melonie, 2009, Natl Vital Stat Rep, V57, P1
[10]   Access to care, health status, and health disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a cross-national population-based survey [J].
Lasser, Karen E. ;
Himmelstein, David U. ;
Woolhandler, Steffie .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2006, 96 (07) :1300-1307