| Abstract: | BackgroundUse of simulated patients (SP) to assess the quality of pharmacy services and impact of interventions is increasing. The CRiSP (Checklist for Reporting research using Simulated Patient methodology) checklist was recently developed, assisting researchers to report items necessary to meet a minimum agreed standard.Objective(s)To identify which CRiSP items were reported in SP studies for community pharmacy research, identify any gaps in reporting and describe the overall quality of reporting for the SP studies identified.MethodsPapers published during 2018–2020 using SP methodology in community pharmacy settings were identified from MEDLINE and Embase. The 50 most recent ones were selected. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Each paper received a coded numerical value denoting compliance with each item of CRiSP (1 = yes, 2 = no, 3 = unclear, 4 = not applicable, 5 = partially complete). Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and reported as frequencies and percentages of each code for the checklist items, across the 50 papers.ResultsNo paper fulfilled all items in the CRiSP checklist. The mode(s) of delivery of SP assessments (item 17) was reported in all papers, while use of the term SP (item 1); number of SPs (4a); scenario details (9a); describing procedures12; data collection procedure (18); and ethics approval (23a) were reported in at least 80% of papers. Items not reported in over 50% of papers were: scenario development (8a), validation (8b) and flexibility (9b); materials used (10a) and copies of materials (10b); and procedures for SP identification (15). Researchers found interpretation of the checklist unclear and utilised working definitions to ensure consistency in coding.ConclusionsThis review identified that pharmacy research involving SP methodology is often inadequately reported by researchers. The CRiSP checklist is a comprehensive tool to assess the quality of SP methodology reporting but may require some refinement to ensure consistency in use. |
