Pharmacists' acceptability of a men's mental health promotion program using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

INTRODUCTION

Community pharmacists are accessible, knowledgeable, and capable of providing mental health promotion and care in communities. This may not be a role that is recognized by the public, and men in particular. Differences between men and women exist in help seeking practices. Headstrong-Taking Things Head-On is a men's mental health promotion program for community pharmacies that was designed to increase the capacity of community pharmacists in caring for men with lived experience of mental illness and addictions. The program's core components included signage in pharmacies, education and training for pharmacists, and a website for use with patients.

METHODS

We applied the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability as the coding scheme to pharmacists' qualitative interviews to examine the acceptability of Headstrong for pharmacists.

RESULTS

Nine pharmacists consented to participate and all chose telephone interviews. With the exceptions of ethicality, affective attitude, and opportunity costs, all components from the TFA were coded in each of the nine transcripts. The most frequently coded constructs were perceived effectiveness of the intervention, burden, and self-efficacy. These were coded at least 20 times. The remaining categories ethicality, intervention coherence, affective attitude, and opportunity costs were coded between 11 to 17 times. Pharmacists' perceptions of the effectiveness of the program was mixed. The overall burden was perceived to be low, but opportunity costs appear to have limited the participation of some pharmacists in the program.

CONCLUSION

Use of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability as a coding scheme for qualitative data from community pharmacists in a men's mental health program was helpful for identifying issues with the program that may require redesign (e.g., signage). Program design should consider how services are advertised in the pharmacy setting, how personal values of pharmacists influence intervention coherence, and whether minimizing the burden of an intervention negates issues related to opportunity costs.