|
· Which? report
· Medicines in children
· Community pharmacy
· Minor ailments service
· Branded generics
· Emergency contraception
· Workforce academy
· CPD
· The Register
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Which? report
Editor defends Which? research methods
From Mr M. Coles
Some of your correspondents (PJ, 14 February, pp182–83) cannot
have read the Which? report on pharmacies or they would have a clearer
understanding of our methodology and conclusions.
Which? research is not carried out by “a bunch of journalists” as
Peter Scott suggests, but by teams of highly experienced researchers.
Three pharmacists (two eminent academics involved in pharmacist training
and one community pharmacist) worked with our research team to devise
the scenarios, which were based on the issues they believed it most important
to test, and evaluate the visits. All were secretly recorded to ensure
that we knew exactly what was said. Each of the 84 visits was discussed
in detail by the experts and our researchers before an evaluation was
made.
Our research was statistically designed to allow us to draw some general
conclusions about the whole market. A representative sample of 84 pharmacies
was chosen from across the country, based proportionally on the market
structure. Within each geographical area, pharmacies were selected from
each category (the big chains, smaller chains, supermarkets and independents)
using random sampling methods.
Our experts judged 35 of the 84 visits unsatisfactory. Using the conventional
(95 per cent) confidence level the national incidence of unsatisfactory
advice would be at least 31 per cent and could be as high as 52 per cent.
At a 99.9 per cent confidence level, the minimum would be 26 per cent.
Our conclusion that the problem is widespread is not “gross statistical
disproportionality”, as Arthur
Lewis suggested.
We met representatives of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as soon as
the final results were known, because we believed it was in the best
interests of consumers and the profession that they understood both our
methodology and our conclusions. We have told them that we are happy
to meet again to share more details of our research. However, we will
not be revealing the names of the pharmacies that were rated as “unsatisfactory”.
Identifying individuals makes it too easy for companies or regulators
to use them as scapegoats, and claim that they had dealt with the problem,
when our research shows there are issues with the whole market.
I was pleased to see some of your correspondents accept the validity
of our research and agree with our experts’ conclusion that this
is an issue that the profession needs to take seriously. It might be
better if some of their colleagues actually read the report (see www.which.net)
before writing ill-informed letters.
Malcolm Coles
Editor, Which?
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal