Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction A Community of Practice is briefly defined as a group of people with a shared interest in a given area of practice who work collaboratively to grow collective knowledge. Communities of Practice have been used to facilitate knowledge exchange and improve evidence-based practice. Knowledge translation within the residential aged care sector is lacking, with barriers such as inadequate staffing and knowledge gaps commonly cited. In Australia, a Federal inquiry into residential aged care practices led to a recommendation to embed pharmacists within residential aged care facilities. Onsite practice in aged care is a new role for pharmacists in Australia. Thus, support is needed to enable pharmacists to practice in this role.
The primary aim is to evaluate the processes and outcomes of a Community of Practice designed to support pharmacists to work in aged care.
Methods and analysis A longitudinal, single-group, pretest–post-test design in which the intervention is a Community of Practice. The Community of Practice will be established and made available for 3 years to all Australian pharmacists interested in, new to or established in aged care roles. The Community of Practice will be hosted on online discussion platforms, with additional virtual meetings and annual symposia. The following data will be collected from all members of the Community of Practice: self-evaluation of the processes and outcomes of the Community of Practice (via the CoPeval scale) and confidence in evidence-based practice (EPIC scale), collected via online questionnaires annually; and discussion platform usage statistics and discussion transcripts. A subset of members will be invited to participate in annual semi-structured individual interviews.
Data from the online questionnaire will be analysed descriptively. Discussion transcripts will be analysed using topic modelling and content analysis to identify the common topics discussed and their frequencies. Qualitative data from individual interviews will be thematically analysed to explore perceptions and experiences with the intervention for information/knowledge exchange, impact on practice, and sharing/promoting/implementing evidence-based practice.
Ethics and dissemination Human ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia’s Human Ethics Committee (2023/ET000000). No personal information will be included in any publications and reports to funding bodies.
Findings will be disseminated to all members of the Community of Practice, professional organisations, social and mass media, peer-review journals, research and professional conferences and annual reports to the funding body.
- Health Services for the Aged
- QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
- STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Strengths and limitations of this study
Data will be collected from a multitude of qualitative and quantitative sources longitudinally.
The organic nature of online discussions between multiple participants limits the exact replicability of the Community of Practice intervention.
The single-group pretest–post-test design is inherently limited by history and maturation biases which we plan to mitigate using triangulation of data sources.
Introduction
Background and rationale
Communities of Practice (CoPs) are defined as: ‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion about a topic and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis… These people don’t necessarily work together on a day-to-day basis, but they get together because they find value in their interactions, as they spend time together, they typically share information, insight, and advice. They solve problems. They think about common issues. They explore ideas and act as sounding boards to each other. They may create tools, standards, generic designs, manuals, and other documents; they may just keep what they know as a tacit understanding they share… Over time, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices and approaches. They also develop personal relationships and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of identity’.1 Essential elements of CoPs include the following:
‘Social interaction of members with each other through formal, informal or technological settings.
Sharing of relevant knowledge between each member.
Collaboration between members to problem solve or create new knowledge.
Fostering the development of a shared-identity among its members’.”2
CoPs have been widely used in different sectors, including healthcare, business and education.3 Within the healthcare sector, CoPs have been used to facilitate knowledge/information exchange, improve practice and facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice.4 Extant evidence within the healthcare sector suggests CoPs improve outcomes in developing local guidelines/policies, use of screening tools, greater involvement of patients in decision-making and improved adherence to evidence-based practice indicators;4 such benefits could serve to address current issues within the residential aged care sector.
Internationally, the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and overall knowledge translation within the residential aged care sector is plagued by barriers such as inadequate staffing levels, lack of staff knowledge/training and lack of resources.5 Within Australia, initial evidence suggestive of substandard care of residents prompted a federal inquiry through the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.6 With the final report by the Royal Commission, a recommendation was made to increase staffing numbers to include the employment of at least one pharmacist per residential aged care facility.6 As this is only a recommendation, residential aged care facilities are not mandated to employ pharmacists; however, the Australian Government has committed to investing AU$350 million for community pharmacies to employ pharmacists to work onsite in residential aged care facilities.7
Onsite residential aged care pharmacist roles are in their infancy in Australia, with only one published pilot programme to date.8 As such, pharmacists who will transition into this new role will require support in competently fulfilling their new roles. Furthermore, current reports indicate that only one full-time equivalent pharmacist will be employed per 250-bed facility; this will mean that many pharmacists working in this new role will be working in professional isolation from other pharmacy colleagues.9 A CoP can thus provide an avenue for social interaction, shared learning and knowledge translation. Certainly, extant evidence suggest that a virtual CoP is desired by pharmacists working in family medicine groups (General Practices), an emerging role in pharmacy practice.10 However, it is unknown whether CoPs can support pharmacists to work within a new role that has not yet been formally established; its utility in facilitating knowledge/information exchange, improving practice and implementing evidence-based practice in this context is also unknown.
Objectives
This proposed project incorporates the development and longitudinal evaluation of a CoP intervention to support pharmacists transitioning into the residential aged care sector. Specifically, we primarily seek to evaluate the processes and outcomes of a CoP that is designed to support pharmacists to work within the residential aged care sector, over time.
We are also interested in exploring pharmacists’ perceptions and experiences with the CoP intervention in supporting knowledge/information exchange, improving practice and implementing evidence-based practice.
Methods and analysis
Study design
A longitudinal, single-group, pretest–post-test design with mixed-methods evaluation.
Study setting
Data will be collected from participants located across Australia without any other site or setting restrictions.
Eligibility criteria
Main study
Participants will be included in the CoP intervention if they:
Are able to provide a valid AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) registration number verifying that they are a registered pharmacist in Australia. This includes provisional and non-practising registration statuses.
Self-report either being interested, are newly employed, or have experience in the residential aged care sector. For the purpose of our proposed study, the ‘residential aged care sector’ includes onsite, community and/or hospital-based outreach settings.
Semistructured individual interviews
A subset of participants from the main study will be invited to participate in one or more annual semistructured individual interviews. Participants who have participated in one semistructured individual interview during any of the annual semistructured individual interviews will be permitted to participate in future semistructured individual interviews.
In addition to the abovementioned eligibility criteria, the interview participants must have participated in the CoP intervention for a duration approximately equal (within±3 months) to the annual cycle of the semistructured individual interviews. For example, participants who have participated in the CoP intervention for 9–15 months will be eligible for the year 1 semistructured individual interviews. For the purpose of our study, we define ‘participation in the CoP intervention’ as a CoP member who self-reports either reading and/or posting (including commenting on a post and authoring original posts) at least once within the past annual cycle.
Participants not meeting the abovementioned eligibility criteria will be excluded. No further exclusion criteria will be applied.
Intervention
Overview
A ‘Pharmacists in Aged Care Community of Practice’ will be established by the research team in collaboration with our partner organisations, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) and the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). At the initial stage, the CoP will primarily be hosted on three closed online platforms that have text-based discussion functionality: Moodle, Facebook group and WhatsApp group. These platforms have been selected by the research team to provide multiple avenues for communication to occur, and are based on the team’s observation on which platforms have been used for CoPs. However, as part of the qualitative evaluation (via semistructured individual interviews), the choice of platforms are able to be changed based on formal feedback from participants (see ‘Data collection methods’ for more information on the CoP evaluation).
The CoP will be facilitated and evaluated for a period of 36 months from 1 February 2024 to 1 February 2027.
The following subsections provide further details surrounding the design of our proposed CoP intervention. In the absence of a standard reporting guideline for CoP interventions, we have used similar headings reported in a systematic review of healthcare CoP by Ranmuthugala et al 4 for consistency in reporting.
Composition of members
Members of the CoP will not be required to be affiliated with any professional organisation (eg, PSA and SHPA). Members include all participants and one paid facilitator. The paid facilitator is external to the research team but will meet the same eligibility criteria as the participants. While there will only be a single paid facilitator, we anticipate that some members of the CoP are likely to take on self-assigned roles as leaders or facilitators.2 Members of the research team who meet the eligibility criteria of the main study will be included as members of the CoP, however, will be excluded from all evaluation.
Intended purpose
The overall intended purpose of the CoP is to facilitate (1) learning and exchange of information/knowledge and (2) sharing, promoting and improving evidence-based practice. However, we will further refine this purpose with a group of pharmacists, pharmacy and medical academics, policymakers and non-pharmacy clinicians at the Inaugural Pharmacists in Aged Care Stakeholder Symposium (see next section).
Means of interaction, communication and exchanging information/knowledge
We initially plan for participants of the CoP intervention to communicate on the aforementioned three discussion platforms (Moodle, Facebook and WhatsApp); however, as aforementioned, the choice of platform could be changed based on formal evaluation of participants. Virtual teleconference meetings will be held at a minimum of four times per year for the duration of the CoP intervention, and hosted on Microsoft Teams. The purpose of the virtual teleconference meetings is to facilitate real-time interaction. Examples of potential activities during these teleconference meetings include patient case discussions, and journal clubs; however, the exact activities will be determined by the CoP members. Additionally, a 1 day symposium (with a hybrid of face-to-face and online attendance) will be held annually for the duration of the study; each symposium will comprise a mix of workshops, small group discussions, and keynote presentations.
Participants of the CoP intervention will also be contacted by members of the research team and the partner organisations for invitations to participate in the evaluation aspects of the study (see recruitment section below) or the annual symposium, respectively.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome is mean change in each dimension of the CoPeval scale,11 from the first year of the study period (ie, T1) to the second year of the study period (ie, T2) (See ‘Data collection methods’ for more information on the CoPeval scale). The second year of the study has been chosen in place of the final year as we anticipate that not all participants will be recruited within the first year of the study period (see ‘Participant timeline’ section).
Secondary outcomes are the mean change in each dimension of the CoPeval scale at T2 to T3 and T1 to T3 (see ‘Participant timeline’ section below).
Both primary and secondary outcomes will be measured using online questionnaires. Further details are described in the ‘Data collection methods’ section.
Other outcomes are:
Participants’ perceptions and experiences with the CoP intervention for information/knowledge exchange, impact on practice and sharing/promoting/implementing evidence-based practice. This will be evaluated alongside the CoPeval scale assessment at T1, T2 and T3, primarily via semistructured individual interviews, as well as an evidence-based practice confidence scale (see ‘Data collection methods’ section).
Topics discussed and topic frequency across the three discussion platforms (Moodle, Facebook and WhatsApp). This will be qualitatively evaluated 15 months after the study’s commencement, and annually thereafter until the study’s conclusion.
Participant timeline
Main study
Participants will be enrolled continuously throughout the duration of the study. The CoPeval scale11 will be administered at time points T1, T2 and T3, in waves according to which quarter a participant enrols. Figure 1 illustrates how we define the time points for evaluation:
T1, T2 and T3 will be assessed approximately halfway through the quarter of each subsequent year. For example, if a participant first enrolled between 1 July and 30 September in a particular year, they will be invited to complete an online questionnaire to ascertain CoPeval scores on 15 August the following year (T1). Participants will have 4 weeks from the date of invitation to complete the online questionnaire to ascertain CoPeval scores, with a reminder sent after 2 weeks.
Example of how time points will be defined for evaluation, based on which quarter a participant enrols into the study.
Semistructured individual interviews
The first annual semistructured individual interviews will be held 15 months after the first participant is enrolled in the main study, on the first weekday of that month (± 2 weeks). Subsequent semistructured individual interviews will be held annually (ie, 12 monthly) thereafter.
Sample size
Overview
Our minimum sample size for total participants within our CoP intervention is estimated to be 647 participants; this will enable evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes, as well as data saturation to enable evaluation of the interview data. We will not apply a cap to the upper limit of the number of participants. Further details regarding how we determined this sample size is provided below.
Detailed calculations and assumptions
Based on Cochran’s Formula,12 we require 97 participants to complete the online questionnaire (to determine CoPeval scores) by T3. This sample size estimation assumes an unknown population size and population proportion, 95% confidence limits and ±10% precision. This estimated sample size formula enables estimation of population proportion, but is not designed to enable hypothesis testing (as this is not the objective of the proposed study). This means that, assuming we obtain the required sample size calculated, we will be able to estimate the true ‘CoPeval scores’ of the population of pharmacists interested in, newly employed or have experience working in aged care within the specified precision of ±10%, but have not calculated whether the sample will be powered to detect statistically significant differences in the mean change in CoPeval scores.
For the semistructured individual interviews, we require up to 20 participants to complete each annual interview; this is based on the average number of individual interview participants required for data saturation being between 9 and 17 interviews.13
However, a larger sample than the estimates provided in the preceding two paragraphs is required to take into consideration response rates and attrition. While there appears to be a paucity of data on response rates for interviews, studies on survey research suggest a typical response rate of 20%. Attrition in a 4 year longitudinal study was reported as 25%.14 Collectively:
97 participants/0.75 (attrition by T3) x 5 (response rate) = 647 participants recruited to attempt the online questionnaire for 97 completed responses by T3
AND
20 interview participants/0.75 (attrition by the year 3 interview) × 5 (response rate) = 134 participants recruited, for 20 participants to complete the interviews by the year 3 interview.
Recruitment
Main study
We will use both convenience and snowball sampling methods to recruit participants into the CoP. Prospective participants will be recruited using the following strategies:
Verbal and written advertising at Australian pharmacy conferences, including the annual symposia that are held as part of the CoP intervention.
Written advertisements via web-based newsletters distributed to pharmacists that are either members of the PSA or the SHPA.
Social media advertising on Australian pharmacy-related Facebook groups and pages, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
Direct invitation of pharmacists known to the research team and partner organisations (PSA and SHPA).
Contacting providers of residential medication management review services to identify pharmacists within their organisations.
Snowball recruitment
All interested (prospective) participants will be asked to complete a brief expression of interest form where they will be asked to provide their name and email address; they will then be emailed to enrol in the study by completing the baseline online questionnaire as well as provide informed consent (see ‘Data collection methods’).
Semistructured individual interviews
Once recruited into the CoP, a subset of participants who are existing members of the CoP will be invited to participate in semistructured individual interviews. Participants will be purposefully sampled, via maximum variation sampling,15 based on level of practice experience in the residential aged care sector and the type of experience (eg, onsite, community outreach and Residential Medication Management Review consultancy services); this information will be collected from the baseline online questionnaire on enrolment into the study (see ‘Data collection methods’).
Recruitment of the interview participants will be conducted primarily within the baseline online questionnaire of the main study where participants will be asked if they are interested in participating in one or more semistructured individual interviews. Additional recruitment strategies will be social media advertising on the three discussion platforms that host the CoP, at each annual symposia and snowballing.
All interested (prospective) participants will be asked to complete an brief expression of interest form where they will be asked to provide their name and email address; they will then be emailed and invited to complete a brief online questionnaire where we will collect basic demographic data as well as provide informed consent (see ‘Data collection methods’).
Data collection methods
Main study: primary and secondary outcomes
All prospective participants for the CoP will be invited to complete the baseline questionnaire on enrolment, and will be invited to complete the subsequent questionnaires annually (ie, T1, T2 and T3). All of the online questionnaires will be hosted on the Qualtrics survey platform.
The baseline online questionnaire will collect the following demographic data: age (years), gender, highest education level, accreditation status as a consultant pharmacist, aged care practice experience (years), total practice experience (years), practice setting, State/Territory of residence and rurality. Additionally, screening questions will be asked during the baseline online questionnaire to ensure eligibility in the main study. In addition to demographic and screening questions, the baseline questionnaire will evaluate self-reported evidence-based practice confidence via the EPIC scale.16 17 The EPIC scale is a validated instrument that measures an individual healthcare professional’s level of confidence with implementing evidence-based practice.16 17 This scale has been chosen to supplement the qualitative findings from the semistructured individual interviews as it pertains to the impact of the CoP intervention on participants’ evidence-based practice confidence.
All subsequent online questionnaires (ie, T1, T2, and T3) will collect the following information:
Self-reported evaluation of CoP processes and outcomes via the CoPeval scale.11
Self-reported evidence-based practice confidence via the EPIC scale.16 17
Self-reported engagement with the CoP
The CoPeval scale is a validated instrument that evaluates CoP processes and CoP outcomes.11 The process part of the scale is primarily based on key dimensions of a CoP identified through a review of CoP literature: joint enterprise, mutual engagement, shared repository (knowledge sharing), social support and training (capacity building). The outcomes part of the CoPeval scale evaluates the implementation of the CoP, facilitation and external impact. Collectively, the CoPeval scale will allow the research team to determine whether the CoP intervention’s process and outcomes change over time.
Self-reported engagement with the CoP will be assessed by asking participants to rate their level of engagement with the CoP on a 5-point Likert scale. Specifically, participants will be asked to rate their engagement in terms of how often they:
Read posts (1=less than once a month, 2=about once a month, 3=about once a fortnight, 4=about once a week, 5=more than once a week).
Write original posts (1=less than once a month, 2=about once a month, 3=about once a fortnight, 4=about once a week, 5=more than once a week).
Comment on other members’ posts (1=less than once a month, 2=about once a month, 3=about once a fortnight, 4=about once a week, 5=more than once a week).
Attend the virtual meetings (1=zero times in the past 12 months, 2=once in the past 12 months, 3=twice in the past 12 months, 4=three times in the past 12 months, 5=four or more times in the past 12 months).
Main study: other outcomes (topics discussed and topic frequencies)
All text-based discussions and basic user analytics (number of logins, frequency of logins and total duration of activity) across the three discussion platforms (Moodle, Facebook and WhatsApp) will be captured via semiautomated python web scraper deployed on a server located at the University of Queensland, Australia. The python web scraper will extract all relevant discussions at 1-hourly intervals (from the commencement of the study) and store the data in a mongodb database. The data extracted will be used to facilitate analysis of topics discussed and topic frequency. The code to enable web scraping will be developed by a member of the research team with expertise in coding and software development (EL).
Main study: plans to capture non-response
CoP members who do not participate in one or more annual questionnaires will be emailed once (at the end of the evaluation period for the relevant year) to confirm their non-participation and invited to provide a reason for declining the questionnaire.
CoP members who decide to leave the CoP (as indicated by leaving all three discussion platforms) will be be emailed once (at the end of the evaluation period for the relevant year) and invited to provide a reason for leaving.
Semistructured individual interviews: other outcomes (information/knowledge exchange, impact on practice and sharing/promoting/implementing evidence-based practice)
All interview participants will be invited to complete a brief demographic online questionnaire to facilitate purposeful sampling. The online questionnaire will be hosted on the Qualtrics survey platform and will collect the following demographic information: age (years), gender, aged care practice experience (years), practice setting, State/Territory of residence and rurality. Participants in the semistructured individual interviews will be selected to ensure representation based on practice setting and years of aged care experience (ie, interested but not practising in aged care, community outreach experience and onsite aged care experience). Other demographic data collected will be used solely to provide context to the participants’ backgrounds.
Semi-structured virtual individual interviews will be used to explore participants’ perceptions and experiences with the CoP intervention for information/knowledge exchange, impact on practice and sharing/promoting/implementing evidence-based practice. Participants will also be asked to provide general comments relating to the CoP process and outcomes to ensure that the CoP continues to meet the needs of the CoP members. The interview guide will be developed by members of the research team and piloted with a sample of pharmacists that have experience with participating in one or more CoPs but are not current participants of our CoP intervention. Each virtual interview will be conducted by a member of the research team with expertise in qualitative research and virtual interviewing; the interviews will be conducted using Microsoft Teams.
Semistructured individual interviews: plans to capture non-response
Participants who indicated in the baseline online questionnaire that they would not be interested in participating in the semistructured individual interviews will be emailed once (2 weeks prior to the year 1 interviews) to confirm their decision and invited to provide a reason for declining the interview, as a means to capture non-participation.
Data management
Overview
All data are electronic; no paper-based data will be collected. All original data will be stored in the University of Western Australia’s (UWA) Institutional Research Data Store (IRDS); this is only accessible by UWA-employed/enrolled members of the research team with password protection. All identifiable data will be deidentified and a copy of the deidentified data will be transferred to a UWA-licensed Microsoft Teams account and a UWA-licensed OneDrive to facilitate collaboration and ease of access; both Teams and OneDrive will only be accessible by members of the research team. All non-identifiable data will be transferred to a UWA-licensed Microsoft Teams account and a UWA-licensed OneDrive to facilitate collaboration and secure ease of access. All data will be retained on the UWA IRDS for a minimum of 7 years after the date of publication or project completion, whichever is later. Data from other sources (Teams/OneDrive) will be deleted after the date of the final publication.
Main study
The online questionnaires will be self-entered by participants via Qualtrics. Where applicable, data validation restrictions will be applied to mitigate data entry errors; data will also be manually checked during data analysis by a member of the research team who is a statistician. Coding errors will be mitigated by the use of the Qualtrics platform as each questionnaire item will be pre-coded via the platform.
The web scraping code will be checked by using dummy data included in Moodle, Facebook WhatsApp to ensure data accuracy.
Semistructured individual interviews
Data from the virtual interviews will be dual audio-recorded by one member of the research team, using Microsoft Teams. Data will also be transcribed verbatim using the transcription feature within Microsoft Teams with a review of all transcripts by a member of the research team to confirm transcription accuracy.
Data analysis plan
Main study: primary and secondary outcomes
All quantitative data will be analysed descriptively using the latest version of R, with scripting to enable reproducibility of analyses. We will report the mean change in CoPeval scores for each dimension (with SD), for participants overall.
Main study: other outcomes (topics discussed and topic frequencies)
Text-based data from the discussion platforms will be analysed using a topic modelling and content analysis approach. Given that we expect the length of discussions on the discussion platforms to be shorter than traditional long-form text, we will use a biterm topic modelling approach.18 Initial topics identified through biterm topic modelling will be manually refined by the research team and topic frequencies will be counted (content analysis). All analyses pertaining to the text-based data from the discussion platforms will be conducted using the latest version of R, with scripting.
Semistructured individual interviews
Transcripts from the semistructured individual interviews will be imported into the latest version of QSR NVivo for qualitative data management. Qualitative interview data will be inductively coded and thematically analysed by at least two independent researchers using the Framework method described by Gale et al.19 The Framework method was chosen as it allows charting of each participant’s quotes for each code, thereby facilitating future inquiry audit to establish dependability; additionally, the Framework method is a flexible approach that is suited for a range of qualitative approaches and data collection methods such as semistructured individual interviews.19 Credibility will be established using data and analyst triangulation, and negative case analysis. Transferability will be established using detailed quotes and descriptions to support the identified themes. An audit trail will be used to document coding decisions to establish confirmability and facilitate future inquiry audits (which can establish dependability).
Strengths and limitations
A key strength of our proposed study is the collection of qualitative and quantitative data from multiple sources over time; these include self-reported data from both quantitative and qualitative sources, as well as objective data such as user analytics and participant discussion posts. As each source of data has inherent limitations (eg, subjectivity of self-reported data), use of multiple sources of data, over time, seeks to mitigate such limitations.
A key limitation is the use of a single-group pretest–post-test design. This research design is inherently limited by history and maturation biases,20 which is excarbated through the longitudinal nature of the proposed study. While a control group could serve to mitigate such biases, given that the CoP is designed to support pharmacists in a new role, we did not want to prevent access to our CoP for the sole purpose of scientific discovery. As a compromise, we will use semistructured individual interviews to mitigate this limitation by asking participants to elaborate on the process and outcomes of the CoP, and triangulate findings from both qualitative and quantitative sources.
Furthermore, given the anticipated low response rates that is typical for questionnaires, there is potential for selection bias. We attempt to mitigate poor response rates through our broad recruitment strategies. Additionally, we have proposed plans to capture non-responders and participants who leave the CoP.
Finally, given the organic nature of discussions that form within a CoP, exact replication is not possible. This could therefore limit the generalisability of our findings to other CoPs. However, we have articulated the design of our CoP in detail as an attempt to allow others to be able to develop a similar CoP.
Ethics and dissemination
Research ethics approval
This proposed project has been approved by the UWA Human Ethics Committee (2023/ET000000). Reciprocal ethics will be sought by non-UWA-employed members of the research team for their respective institutions, where applicable, and prior to non-UWA members having access to any participant data.
Protocol amendments
Any modifications to the protocol will be communicated to all relevant parties: members of the research team, Human Research Ethics Committees, participants, journals via manuscripts submitted for publication and the funding body via annual reports.
Consent
Main study
Prospective participants will be provided with written participant information to support informed consent; this will occur when enrolling in the main study. Consent will be obtained electronically via Qualtrics.
Semistructured individual interviews
Prospective participants will be provided with written participant information to support informed consent; this will occur when enrolling in each of the annual semistructured individual interviews. Consent will be obtained electronically via Qualtrics.
Confidentiality
Personal information about prospective and enrolled participants obtained from online questionnaires will be explicitly collected. However, this information will only be shared among members of the research team for data analysis directly pertaining to the study. No personal information will be included in any publications and reports to funding bodies. After the final publication, data will not be shared but will remain on the UWA IRDS as specified in the earlier ‘Data Management’ section.
Personal information obtained via web scraping on the online discussion platforms will be removed by one member of the research team (EL) after data have been scraped and cleaned for data analysis. As such, no personal information will be shared with anyone.
Any other personal information that is incidentally collected (ie, not explicitly requested) will not be used by members of the research team for data analysis purposes, and will not be included in any publications and reports to funding bodies. After the final publication, data will not be shared but will remain on the UWA IRDS as specified in the earlier ‘Data Management’ section.
Access to data
Only members of the research team will have access to the study data. Funding bodies and partner organisations, unless also members of the research team, will not have access to the data.
Dissemination
Findings will be disseminated to all members of the CoP, professional organisations, social and mass media, peer-review journals, research and professional conferences and annual reports to the funding body. Open-access publishers will be sought, where possible, to facilitate dissemination. However, where there are publication restrictions, we will only disseminate publicly available information (eg, the abstract) for stakeholders that do not have access to the full text.
Patient and public involvement statement
Patients/public were not involved in the development of the research question, design/conduct of the study, recruitment and the choice of outcome measures. However, patients will be and have been involved in the broader project that the proposed study is a component of; this will be described elsewhere.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the feedback and contribution of peer reviewers, including the suggestion to adopt individual semistructured interviews in lieu of focus groups, which we have adopted in the final version of this protocol.
Footnotes
X @KennyPharmPhD, @amytpage
Contributors KL: methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, funding acquisition. CE-B: conceptualisation, writing–review and editing, funding acquisition. JJ, EL, NM, KW, NA, RMC: writing–review and editing, funding acquisition. ATP: conceptualisation, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, funding acquisition.
Funding This work was supported by the Medical Research Future Fund 2022 Quality, Safety and Effectiveness of Medicine Use and Medicine Intervention by Pharmacists grant number MRFMMIP000022.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.