Customers’ Satisfaction toward Drugstore Facilities and Services based on the Good Pharmacy Practice Standard in Thailand

Main Article Content

Keywords

Customer, Satisfaction, Drugstore, Good Pharmacy Practice, GPP

Abstract

Introduction: The Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) standards in Thailand have been legally implemented for all drugstores since 2014. However, customer satisfaction has not been studied. This research aimed to explore the satisfaction of the customers with the facilities and services received from drugstores under the GPP standards and examine the impact of satisfaction toward each GPP domain on overall satisfaction (OS) and the intention to receive the pharmacy services as the first choice in the case of common and non-serious illnesses (IntR). Methods: This research was a cross-sectional survey study. The Google Forms for data collection was distributed via the online social media between June and August 2021. The satisfaction toward OS, IntR, and the GPP domains; places and equipment (PE), personnel (P), quality control (QC), and pharmacy services (PS) were collected using 5-Likert scales. Descriptive statistics, intra-class correlation, and multiple regression were used in data analysis with statistical significance at p-value<0.05. Results: Three hundred and eighty-eight drugstore’s customers responded to the questionnaires. Most customers rated the OS and the IntR at the highest level. The mean of the OS was 4.4±0.7 and the IntR was 4.6±0.7 points out of five. The OS and the IntR were highly correlated with the ICC of 0.719 (p-value<0.001). The satisfactions toward each GPP criteria were ranged between 3.9±0.9 to 4.6±0.7 indicating high levels of satisfaction. All 4 domains of the GPP standards explained the OS and the IntR with R square at 0.541 and 0.363, respectively. However, only PS and PE impacted the OS and only QC and PS impacted the IntR with statistical significance. Conclusion: Thai customers had high levels of the OS and the IntR toward drugstore facilities and services based on the GPP standards. The PS was the domain that statistically influenced both the OS and the IntR, whereas the PE and the QC also statistically influenced the OS and the IntR, respectively. Since PE was the most weighted domain for current inspection, PS and QC should be more emphasized in future revision of the GPP inspection.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 292 | pdf Downloads 289

References

1. World Health Organization. Annex 8: Joint FIP/WHO guidelines on good pharmacy practice: standards for quality of pharmacy services. WHO expert committee on specifications for pharmaceutical preparations. Published 2011. Accessed November 12,2021.
2. Badro DA, Sacre H, Hallit S, et al. Good pharmacy practice assessment among community pharmacies in Lebanon. Pharm Pract(Granada). 2020;18(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2020.1.1745
3. Kim DW, Lee BJ. Recognition investigation of community pharmacists implementing good pharmacy practice in Korea. Int J Heal Serv. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731420941459
4. Office of Community Pharmacy Accreditation. History of the community pharmacy accreditation program. The pharmacy council of Thailand. Published 2020. Accessed November 12, 2021.
5. Wuttipanich T, Kitisopee T. Economic impact assessment on good pharmacy practice regulation in Thai community pharmacy.Thai J Pharm Sci. 2015;39(3):110-118.
6. Food and Drug Administration. Licensed community pharmacies directory 2021. Ministry of Public Health. Published 2021. Accessed November 12, 2021.
7. Food and Drug Administration. Ministerial regulations for permission and issuance of modern drug Sales License B.E. 2556 (2013). Ministry of Public Health. Published 2016. Accessed November 12, 2021.
8. Vimolkittiphong S, Pantong M. Guideline to Achieve Mandatory GPP Regulation. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2015.
9. Food and Drug Administration. Self-assessment document based on Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) assessment guidelines. Ministry of Public Health. Published 2020. Accessed November 12, 2021.
10. Aziz MM, Ji W, Masood I, et al. Patient satisfaction with community pharmacies services: a cross-sectional survey from Punjab; Pakistan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122914
11. Ayalew M, Taye K, Asfaw D, et al. Patients’/clients’ expectation toward and satisfaction from pharmacy services. J Res Pharm Pract. 2017;6(1):21. https://doi.org/10.4103/2279-042x.200995
12. Al-Tannir M, Alharbi AI, Alfawaz AS, et al. Saudi adults satisfaction with community pharmacy services. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2442-8
13. Harnsongkanit M, Thananithisak C. Evaluation of customer satisfaction with service quality from accredited independent pharmacies located in bangkok by applying the SERVQUAL model. Thai J Pharm Pract. 2021;13(2):412-420
14. Thavornwattanayong W, Yuklanthuan C, Panyakrua P, et al. Pharmacy owners’ opinions in Nakhon Pathom province on the notification of the Ministry of Public health B.E. 2557 (2014) on the regulations of setting, equipment and Good Pharmacy Practice. Thai Bull Pharm Sci. 2016;11(2):27-44.
15. Chunon P, Sitthiworanan C. Situation and readiness of drug store entrepreneur on ministerial regulations for permission and pharmacy licensing 2013 in Nakhon Pathom. Isan J Pharm Sci. 2016;12(4):54-69.
16. Leauwong S. Driving the policy for improving the standard of drugstores in Udon Thani province. Thai J Pharm Pract.2018;10(1):38-48.
17. Wientong P, Chinwong D, Chinwong S, et al. Readiness among community pharmacists in Chiang Mai to comply with the ministerial declaration on licensing and requirements on premises, instruments and Good Pharmacy Practice. Thai J Pharm Pract. 2017;9(1):92-102.
18. Thongyung P, Komwutthikarn K. Development of drugstores to Good Pharmacy Practice by participatory action research, in Sumutsongkhram provice. FDA J. 2018:39-48.
19. Bolarinwa OA. Sample size estimation for health and social science researchers: the principles and considerations for different study designs. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2020;27:67-75. https://doi.org/10.4103/npmj.npmj_19_20
20. Martínez-mesa J, González-chica DA, Duquia RP, et al. Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? An Bras Dermatol. 2016;93(3):326-330. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20165254
21. Food and Drug administration. Notification of the ministry of public health on prescribing places, equipment, and community pharmacy practices in community pharmacy according to the Drug law, B.E. 2557 (2014). Ministry of Public Health. Published 2014. Accessed November 12, 2021.
22. Asayut N, Sookaneknun P, Chaiyasong S, et al. Outcomes, costs and stakeholders’ perspectives associated with the incorporation of community pharmacy services into the National Health Insurance System in Thailand: a systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2018;26(1):16-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12385 
23. Yotsombut K, Duangchan P, Nakpun T. Client attitudes toward marketing mix potentially influencing intention to use services of a pharmacy school affiliated community pharmacy. Thai Pharm Heal Sci J. 2021;16(2):102-108.
24. Nitadpakorn S, Farris KB, Kittisopee T. Factors affecting pharmacy engagement and pharmacy customer devotion in community pharmacy: a structural equation modeling approach. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017;15(3):1-8. https://doi.org/10.18549/ pharmpract.2017.03.999 
25. Parinyarux P, Yotsombut K. Importance and awareness of the Good Pharmacy Practice from drugstore clients’ perspectives. Thai J Pharm Pract. 2022;14(3):forthcoming.