Open AccessWhat do community pharmacists think about undertaking screening and brief interventions with problem drinkers? Results of a qualitative study in New Zealand and England
Author(s) -
Horsfield Emma,
Sheridan Janie,
Anderson Claire
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
international journal of pharmacy practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.42
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 2042-7174
pISSN - 0961-7671
DOI - 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2011.00112.x
Subject(s) - medicine , psychological intervention , pharmacy , nursing , incentive , qualitative research , health promotion , promotion (chess) , apprehension , family medicine , public health , psychology , social science , sociology , politics , political science , law , economics , cognitive psychology , microeconomics
Objective Problem drinking is an increasing concern to many governments worldwide including those of England and New Zealand. Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is effective at reducing alcohol consumption and preventing escalation of hazardous drinking patterns into harmful drinking or dependence. Community pharmacy has been suggested as a potential site from which to provide readily accessible SBI services. This paper explores the views of 40 pharmacists on the prospect of providing SBI for alcohol health promotion purposes, focusing particularly upon potential barriers and incentives to provision of these services. The aim was to explore the views of community pharmacists toward the development of SBI for risky drinkers through semi‐structured interviews. Methods Qualitative, tape‐recorded interviews conducted with 22 English pharmacists and 18 New Zealand pharmacists. Data collection continued until theme saturation occurred. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed. Key findings Pharmacists considered there was a place for alcohol health promotion in community pharmacy. However, not all participants were positive about this potential new role and some expressed apprehension about implementing SBI services due to concerns about offending or alienating customers. Other barriers included lack of experience and confidence, problems faced with other health promotion initiatives, time, privacy and remuneration. Other pharmacists were more positive, seeing potential in terms of remaining competitive. Facilitators included a public health campaign to raise awareness of problem drinking, having appropriate screening tools available and training for pharmacists. Conclusion There appears to be potential for alcohol SBI services in community pharmacy, and interventions designed to reduce barriers and enhance incentivisation need to be implemented and evaluated.