BackgroundReforms in the health-care sector, including the pharmacy sector, can have different rationales. The Swedish pharmacies were prior to 2009 organized in a state-owned monopoly. In 2009, a liberalization of the ownership took place, in which a majority of the pharmacies were sold to private owners. The rationales for this liberalization changed profoundly during the preparatory work, making it probable that other rationales than the ones first expressed existed. The aim of this study was to explore the underlying rationales (not stated in official documents) for the liberalization in the Swedish pharmacy sector, and also to compare the expectations with the perceived outcomes.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from key stakeholder organizations; i.e., political, patient, and professional organizations. The analysis was performed in steps, and themes were developed in an inductive manner.ResultsOne expectation among the political organization participants was that the ownership liberalization would create opportunities for ideas. The competition introduced in the market was supposed to lead to a more diversified pharmacy sector. After the liberalization, the participants in favor of the liberalization were surprised that the pharmacies were so similar.Among the professional organization participants, one important rationale for the liberalization was to get better use of the pharmacists’ knowledge. However, all the professional, and some of the patient organization participants, thought that the counseling in the pharmacies had deteriorated after the liberalization.As expected in the interviews, the post-liberalization pharmacy sector consists of more pharmacies. However, an unexpected perceived effect of the liberalization was, among participants from all the stakeholder groups, less access to prescription medicines in the pharmacies.ConclusionsThis study showed that the political organization participants had an ideological basis for their opinion. The political stakeholders did not have a clear view about what the liberalization should lead to, apart from abolishing the monopoly. The perceived effects are quite similar in the different stakeholder groups, and not as positive as were expected.
Community pharmacies are balancing between business (selling medicines and other products) and healthcare (using the pharmacists’ knowledge in order to improve drug utilization). This balance could be affected by regulations decided upon by politicians, but also influenced by others. The aim of this study was to explore important stakeholders’ views on community pharmacy and community pharmacists in Sweden. The method used was that of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Political, professional, and patient organization representatives were interviewed. The results show that informants who are pharmacists or representatives of a professional pharmacist organization generally have a healthcare-centered view on community pharmacy/pharmacists. However, different views on how this orientation should be performed were revealed, ranging from being specialists to dealing with uncomplicated tasks. Political organization representatives generally had a more business-oriented view, where competition in the market was believed to be the main driving force for development. A third dimension in which competition was not stressed also emerged; that community pharmacies should primarily distribute medicines. This dimension was most prevalent among the political and patient organization representatives. One conclusion to be drawn is that no stakeholder seemed to have a clear vision or was willing to take the lead for the development of the community pharmacy sector.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.