Modelling elderly patients’ perception of the community pharmacist image when providing professional services*

Professional pharmaceutical services may impact on patient’s health behaviour as well as influence on patients’ perceptions of the pharmacist image. The Health Belief Model predicts health-related behaviours using patients’ beliefs. However, health beliefs (HBs) could transcend beyond predicting health behaviour and may have an impact on the patients’ perceptions of the pharmacist image. This study objective was to develop and test a model that relates patients’ HBs to patient’s perception of the image of the pharmacist, and to assess if the provision of pharmacy services (Intervention group-IG) influences this perception compared to usual care (Control group). A qualitative study was undertaken and a questionnaire was created for the development of the model. The content, dimensions, validity and reliability of the questionnaire were pre-tested qualitatively and in a pilot mail survey. The reliability and validity of the proposed model were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to explain relationships between dimensions of the final model and to analyse differences between groups. As a result, a final model was developed. CFA concluded that the model was valid and reliable (Goodness of Fit indices: x²(80) = 125.726, p = .001, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .04, GFI = .997, NFI = .93, CFI = .974). SEM indicated that ‘Perceived benefits’ were significantly associated with ‘Perceived Pharmacist Image’ in the whole sample. Differences were found in the IG with also ‘Self-efficacy’ significantly influencing ‘Perceived pharmacist image’. A model of patients’ HBs related to their image of the pharmacist was developed and tested. When pharmacists deliver professional services, these services modify some patients’ HBs that in turn influence public perception of the pharmacist.     

Contributions of Community Psychology to Rural Advisory Services: An Analysis of Latin American Rural Extensionists’ Point of View

During the last decade, rural extension has received interest as being a key tool for rural development. Despite rural extension being affected by many psychosocial processes, psychology has made scarce contributions to it. An investigation was conducted with the aim of gaining knowledge of rural extensionists’ expectations of psychology, as well as to contribute to shaping community psychologists’ role in the context of rural extension . 652 extensionists from 12 Latin American countries were surveyed. The survey included closed socio‐demographic questions as well as open ones addressing extension practice and psychologists’ potential contributions. 90.6 % of surveyed extensionists considered psychology could help them improve their practice. Most mentioned areas of contribution go in line with community psychology, including managing farmers groups, facilitating participatory processes and training extensionists; while others, such as the expectation of changing farmers’ mindset and increasing the adoption of external technologies, go against its principles. Thus, in some cases, extensionists’ expectations could help generate an interesting interaction between community psychology and rural extension, while in others, they need to be put up for discussion. In brief, community psychology has the potential to contribute to rural extension, but it needs to acknowledge extension practice as an interesting area for intervention.     

So why can’t you intend to drink the toxin?

In this paper I revisit Gregory Kavka’s Toxin Puzzle and propose a novel solution to it. Like some previous accounts, mine postulates a tight link between intentions and reasons but, unlike them, in my account these are motivating rather than normative reasons, i.e. reasons that explain (rather than justify) the intended action. I argue that sensitivity to the absence of possible motivational explanations for the intended action is constitutive of deliberation-based intentions. Since ordinary rational agents display this sensitivity, when placed in the toxin scenario they will believe that there is no motivational explanation for actually drinking the toxin and this is why they can’t form the intention to drink it in the first place. I thus argue that my Motivating-Explanatory Reason Principle correctly explains the toxin puzzle, thereby revealing itself as a genuine metaphysical constraint on intentions. I also explore at length the implications of my account for the nature of intention and rational agency.