Natalia O. Tkachenko, Nataliia M. Chervonenko, Viktoriia O. Demchenko, Oleksii A. Bihdan
Natalia O. Tkachenko1, Nataliia M. Chervonenko, Viktoriia O. Demchenko, Oleksii A. Bihdan2
1Department of the Management and Economics of Pharmacy, Medical and Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence, 2Department of Pharmacognosy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Medicinal Preparations Technology of FPE, Zaporizhzhia State Medical University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.
Volume - 13,
Issue - 12,
Year - 2020
The purpose of the work is to test the developed methodology for assessing the socially responsible behavior of pharmaceutical specialists (PhS) at the level of a pharmacy institution, followed by integration into the pharmaceutical space to increase the level of social responsibility (SR) of pharmaceutical organizations. Materials for research include publications of fundamental and applied researches of domestic and foreign scientists on SR issues and methods of its assessment at the organization and personal levels; national and international laws governing SR, pharmacy activities and the work of pharmaceutical specialists. Methods of information retrieval, analysis, synthesis, generalization, modeling and formalization were used in the study. Testing was carried out on the basis of two pharmaceutical organizations, which is typical for the Ukrainian retail segment of the pharmaceutical market (the team of one of the pharmacies of pharmaceutical organizations was evaluated). The experimental version of the methodology contained 38 items, which are grouped into three blocks of assessment parameters: knowledge (a specialist has the necessary professional knowledge) - 11 parameters, skills (a specialist knows how to carry out the work or has professional competencies) - 11 parameters, qualities (a specialist has professional and personal competencies) - 16 parameters. Each PhS was evaluated by the Supervisor of the pharmacy, two colleagues who work with him on a shift, and PhS had to evaluate himself on a scale: “5” - high level, “4” - sufficient level, “3” - satisfactory level, “2” - low level, "1" - unsatisfactory level. The final result is the average value of the assessment and the total score for each of the blocks and in general. According to studies of PhS, pharmacy No. 1 showed a satisfactory and low level of SR, in contrast to PhS of pharmacy No. 2, where a sufficient level prevailed. Thus, on the basis of the developed methodology for assessing the level of socially responsible behavior of PhS, its testing was carried out, which allows further integration of the technique into the pharmaceutical plane to increase the level of SR of pharmaceutical organizations. For the pharmacy in which PhS showed a low level of socially responsible behavior, a set of measures is proposed aimed at increasing the level of social responsibility. Moreover, the proposed set of measures will help to improve the motivational system of personnel of the pharmaceutical organization and the quality of pharmaceutical assistance.
Cite this article:
Natalia O. Tkachenko, Nataliia M. Chervonenko, Viktoriia O. Demchenko, Oleksii A. Bihdan. Testing the Methodology for assessing the Socially responsible behavior of Pharmaceutical specialists at the level of a Pharmacy Institution. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2020; 13(12):5768-5772. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.01005.7
Natalia O. Tkachenko, Nataliia M. Chervonenko, Viktoriia O. Demchenko, Oleksii A. Bihdan. Testing the Methodology for assessing the Socially responsible behavior of Pharmaceutical specialists at the level of a Pharmacy Institution. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2020; 13(12):5768-5772. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.01005.7 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2020-13-12-20
1. Min M, Desmoulins-Lebeault F, Esposito M. Should pharmaceutical companies engage in corporate social responsibility? Journal of Management Development. 2017; 36(1): 58-70.
2. Posylkina ОV, Bratishko YuS. Regulatory base analysis of managing the pharmaceutical companies’ social responsibility. Management, Economy and Quality Assurance in Pharmacy. 2018; 1(53): 28-34.
3. Tkachenko NO, Hromovyk BP. Conceptual analysis of social responsibility of the person and its integration in pharmaceutical practice. Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medicine: Science and Practice. 2017; 10(3): 342–348.
4. International standard. Guidance on social responsibility ISO 26000:2010. Available from: URL: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/ #iso: std:iso:26000: ed-1: v1:en.
5. Guidance Document for Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000®:2014). Available from: URL: http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewDocumentanddocumentid=563anddocumentFormatId=1166andvDocLinkOrigin=1andCFID=26794956andCFTOKEN=f49b58ba4808399e-F2A310CD-1C23-C8EB-802059C9FC828A77/.
6. Volodina A, Sax S, Anderson S. Corporate social responsibility in countries with mature and emerging pharmaceutical sectors. Pharm Pract. 2009; 7(4): 228–237.
7. Hartmann M. Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2011; 38(3): 297–324.
8. Droppert H, Bennett S. Corporate social responsibility in global health: an exploratory study of multinational pharmaceutical firms. Available from: URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC4403913/.
9. Lee H, Kim SY, Kim G, Kang H-Y. Public preferences for corporate social responsibility activities in the pharmaceutical industry: Empirical evidence from Korea. Available from: URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221321.
10. Bratishko YuS. External social responsibility of pharmaceutical companies. Young Scientist. 2016; 4(31): 276-280.
11. Tkachenko NO, Hromovyk BP. Scientific and methodological feasibility of approaches to evaluation of socially responsible behavior of pharmacists. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2019; 10(2): 1297–1302.
12. Tkachenko NO, Hromovyk BР, Serhieieva LN. Development of the technique of evaluating the professionalism of young pharmacists as a basic component of their social responsible behavior. Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medicine: Science and Practice. 2019; 1(29): 84-90.