Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of the Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index for physicians in Malaysia

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Establishing a collaborative working relationship between doctors and pharmacists is essential for the effective provision of pharmaceutical care. The Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index (PPCI) was developed to assess the professional exchanges between doctors and pharmacists. Two versions of the PPCI was developed: one for physicians and one for pharmacists. However, these instruments have not been validated in Malaysia. Objective To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia. Setting An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Methods This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a “collaborator” or a “non-collaborator”. Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later. Main outcome measure Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test–retest) of the PPCI for physicians. Results A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. “Collaborators” had significantly higher scores compared to “non-collaborators” (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test–retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752. Conclusion The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors’ views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdelhamid E, Awad A, Gismallah A. Evaluation of a hospital pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care services for asthma patients. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2008;6(1):25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chisholm MA, Mulloy LL, Jagadeesan M, Martin BC, DiPiro JT. Effect of clinical pharmacy services on the blood pressure of African-American renal transplant patients. Ethn Dis. 2002;12(3):392–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chung WW, Chua SS, Lai PS, Chan SP. Effects of a pharmaceutical care model on medication adherence and glycemic control of people with type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer Adher. 2014;8:1185–94.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in heart failure events by the addition of a clinical pharmacist to the heart failure management team: results of the Pharmacist in Heart Failure Assessment Recommendation and Monitoring (PHARM) Study. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(16):1939–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Schmader KE, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med. 1996;100(4):428–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor CT, Byrd DC, Krueger K. Improving primary care in rural Alabama with a pharmacy initiative. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(11):1123–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmader KE, Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Sloane R, Ruby CM, Twersky J, et al. Effects of geriatric evaluation and management on adverse drug reactions and suboptimal prescribing in the frail elderly. Am J Med. 2004;116(6):394–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams ME, Pulliam CC, Hunter R, Johnson TM, Owens JE, Kincaid J, et al. The short-term effect of interdisciplinary medication review on function and cost in ambulatory elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(1):93–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Doucette WR, Nevins J, McDonough RP. Factors affecting collaborative care between pharmacists and physicians. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2005;1(4):565–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Makowsky MJ, Madill HM, Schindel TJ, Tsuyuki RT. Physician perspectives on collaborative working relationships with team-based hospital pharmacists in the inpatient medicine setting. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;21(2):123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Snyder ME, Zillich AJ, Primack BA, Rice KR, Somma McGivney MA, Pringle JL, et al. Exploring successful community pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationships using mixed methods. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2010;6(4):307–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McDonough RP, Doucette WR. Dynamics of pharmaceutical care: developing collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and physicians. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2001;41(5):682–92.

  14. Zillich AJ, McDonough RP, Carter BL, Doucette WR. Influential characteristics of physician/pharmacist collaborative relationships. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):764–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zillich AJ, Doucette WR, Carter BL, Kreiter CD. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physician–pharmacist collaboration from the physician perspective. Value Health. 2005;8(1):59–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zillich AJ, Milchak JL, Carter BL, Doucette WR. Utility of a questionnaire to measure physician–pharmacist collaborative relationships. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2006;46(4):453–8.

  17. Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grim GL, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995. p. 99–136. ISBN 9781557982735.

  18. Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;10(2):486–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaiser H. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35(4):401–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hair JF, Tatham RL, Anderson RE, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2005. ISBN 9780130329295.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen J. Stastical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1988. ISBN 9780805802832.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistic. 5th ed. Boston: Ally & Bacon; 2007. ISBN 9780205459384.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation to all the participants for agreeing to spend time participating in this study despite their busy schedule. Many thanks to the pharmacists who helped us in identifying the doctors who were in collaboration with them. Finally, we would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Karuthan Chinna from the University of Malaya who provided assistance in data analysis and interpretation.

Funding

This study was funded by University of Malaya Postgraduate Research Grant PV018/2012A.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pauline Siew Mei Lai.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sellappans, R., Ng, C.J. & Lai, P.S.M. Validation of the Physician–Pharmacist Collaborative Index for physicians in Malaysia. Int J Clin Pharm 37, 1242–1249 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0200-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-015-0200-6

Keywords

Navigation