Table A2.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist.
| No. of Item | Guide Questions | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | ||
| Personal Characteristics | ||
| 1. Interviewer/facilitator | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | Authors BQ and AM conducted all interviews. |
| 2. Credentials | What were the researcher’s credentials? (e.g., PhD, MD) | Authors CD and DJ are pharmacy practice faculty; CD holds both a Doctor of Pharmacy and Master of Business Administration degrees; DJ holds both a Doctor of Pharmacy and Doctor of Philosophy in epidemiology; BQ and AM are both Doctor of Pharmacy Candidates; All are affiliated with the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences |
| 3. Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | CD and DJ are pharmacists working as faculty; BQ and AM are students in a pharmacy program |
| 4. Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | CD, DJ, and BQ are male; AM is female |
| 5. Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | Investigators CD and DJ are both residency trained having received Doctor of Pharmacy Degrees from the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences; CD specialized in outpatient pharmacy innovation at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy with quantitative and qualitative research experience; DJ received a PhD in epidemiology from the University at Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions and received in-depth research experience in both quantitative and qualitative methods; BQ and AM were both academic research assistants from clinical backgrounds and received formal training from investigators CD and DJ. |
| Relationship with participants | ||
| 6. Relationship established | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | Those whom participated in the interviews had previously participated in the 35-item cross sectional electronic survey, showing prior relationship to this study. A total of 48 potential interviewees self-identified based on their willingness to provide a follow-up interview from the initial survey. CD serves in a Board of Manager role for CPESN NY, LLC and CPESN NY, IPA, the same group as the source of participants. To manage the conflict, CD was removed from the interview, data collection, and part of the data analysis steps. Other members of the team acted ethically as to not disclose those involved. CD made no contact with study participants. The members of the research team involved in telephonic contact with study participants (BQ and AM) did not have any prior contact or interactions with study participants. The two interviewers (BQ and AM) were both academic research assistants from clinical backgrounds. Past professional background, experiences and prior assumptions were mitigated by this split team approach. Other members of the study team (CD and DJ) were removed from this process due to affiliations and only analyzed de-identified data. No contact between the principal investigators (CD and DJ) were made with the study participants. |
| 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What did the participants know about the researcher? (e.g., personal goals, reasons for doing the research) | The participants received an IRB-approved consent form with information about the study. It outlined the research team was from the University at Buffalo, goals of the research, methods of data collection, how information will be stored and used, and participant rights. Participants had this prior knowledge about the basis of the study due to completing the cross-sectional survey prior to interviews. |
| 8. Interviewer characteristics | What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? (e.g., bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic) | Due to participants being employed by CPESN affiliate entities, no contact between the principal investigators (CD and DJ) were made with the study participants. Interviewers (BQ and AM) were trained in qualitative research methodology prior to conducting the interviews. BQ and AM completed sufficient research about the interview topics to conduct the interviews. |
| Domain 2: Study Design | ||
| 9. Methodological orientation and theory | What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? (e.g., grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis) | A qualitative study to conduct a semi-structured interview with open ended questions to elicit in-depth responses. A semi-structure interview guide was developed by the research team after seeking team expert input and completing a literature search. This can be found in Appendix A. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) guidelines were used to report qualitative research. |
| 10. Sampling | How were participants selected? (e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball) | A total of 48 potential interviewees self-identified based on their willingness to provide a follow-up interview from the initial survey. Participants were chosen based on geographical location to provide a diverse pool of interviewees. |
| 11. Method of approach | How were participants approached? (e.g., face-to-face, telephone, mail, email) | Potential interviewees were recruited to participate via telephone by members of the research team (BQ and AM). |
| 12. Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | Representation consisted of all CPESN NY chapters; Upstate New York (6), Western New York (4), and New York City (2). This was a total of 12 participants. The authors aimed to recruit participants from the three areas and stopped recruitment after consistent findings and perceptions were reached. |
| 13. Non-participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | No participants refused or dropped out of the study. |
| 14. Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? (e.g., home, clinic, workplace) | Interviews were conducted via phone from the University at Buffalo in a closed private room. |
| 15. Presence of non-participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | The phone interviews were conducted one-on-one by either BQ or AM and the recruited participant. No other individuals were present in the room or on the phone. Each researcher conducted six interviews. |
| 16. Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? (e.g., demographic data, date) | Majority (11) of the study participants were pharmacy owners as shown in Table 1. Over half of the community pharmacies (n = 7) had a weekly prescription count of >1200. The average time devoted to PCS was 15 h/week and pharmacies on average spent 8 h/week addressing social barriers. Further details can be found in Section 3.1. |
| 17. Interview guide | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | A semi-structure interview guide was developed by the research team after seeking expert input and completing a literature search. This can be found in Appendix A. |
| 18. Repeat interviews | Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? | There were no repeat interviews conducted. |
| 19. Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | All interviews were digitally recorded and conducted in English. All files were stored on a password protected research computer according to the ethical standards of the University at Buffalo IRB. |
| 20. Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | There was no note of field notes being taken as a result of this study. |
| 21. Duration | What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? | The duration of the interviews with study participants ranged from 27 min to 99 min with an average length of 45 min. |
| 22. Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | At a mid-point of the analysis of the qualitative data, a research meeting was conducted of all team members examining five de-identified transcripts and the codes created by the members of the team most closely involved in data collection and analysis (BQ and AM). As an independent check, the assignment of codes to the five de-identified transcripts was performed by other team members (CD and DJ). The result produced a codebook that would be used for further interviews. After seven additional interviews and analysis the research team concluded that data saturation was met due to consistent themes and findings. |
| 23. Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | No transcripts were provided or returned to participants for comments. |
| Domain 3: Analysis and Findings | ||
| 24. Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | Two of the authors (BQ and AM) read through the data files and independently coded the interview data. As an independent check, the assignment of codes to the five de-identified transcripts was performed by other team members (CD and DJ). |
| 25. Description of the coding tree | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | Coding tree was facilitated by the use of a comprehensive chart forming the basis of the framework. Comparing data between the initial five participants allowed for the exploration of contextual meaning, while comparing across the data set facilitated the identification of key themes. |
| 26. Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? | The initial thematic analysis was conducted by the research team using the mid-point interview data to generate a set of codes that were based on the interview guide. After an additional seven interviews were conducted, transcribed, and coded, the research team met to discuss consensus themes. |
| 27. Software | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | Analysis and coding of the transcripts were supported by use of Microsoft Office Excel® version 2019. |
| 28. Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | After the transcripts were coded, a summary of findings was sent to three of the interview participants to provide feedback of relevance and contextual accuracy. The aim of this process was to make sure the interpretation of the findings was consistent with current experiences. The interview participants agreed and did not provide any changes to the findings. |
| 29. Quotations presented | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? (e.g., participant number) | Themes are illustrated by participant quotations. Examples of quotes were used and identified as participant number such as, “Pharmacist 6.” |
| 30. Data and findings consistent | Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Previous community pharmacy qualitative work describing community pharmacy practice transformation, patient care services, provider collaboration, and alternative payment model shows the current dynamic model evolution. |
| 31. Clarity of major themes: | Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | After thorough analysis of the data, four themes identified by the research team include: (1) perceptions of pharmacy profession, (2) reimbursement models, (3) provision of patient care services, (4) social determinants of health. This is presented in Table 2. |
| 32. Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | Minor or subthemes are described in the results section, Table 2. |
Abb. CPESN, Community Pharmacy Enhanced Service Network. Developed from: Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups [20].