Cover: A Comparison of Satisfaction with Mail versus Traditional Pharmacy Services

A Comparison of Satisfaction with Mail versus Traditional Pharmacy Services

Published in: Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, v. 3, no. 3, May/June 1997, p. 327-337

Posted on on May 01, 1997

by Jeffrey A. Johnson, Stephen Coons, Ron D. Hays, Darrell Sabers, Patricia Jones, Paul C. Langley


To determine the level of satisfaction with pharmacy services among enrollees of a managed care organization and to compare the level of satisfaction between mail pharmacy and traditional pharmacy patrons. DESIGN: Data were collected via telephone interviews with 1,362 enrollees of a large managed care organization with recent prescription claims. Scores were calculated for various hypothesized multi-item dimensions of satisfaction of pharmacy services. With one exception, internal-consistency reliability coefficients for the scales exceeded 0.50. Health status was also measured, using the physical and mental health composite scores of the 12-ltem Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey. Satisfaction with pharmacy services was compared between patron groups using tests and analysis of covariance (AN COVA) models.


Mail pharmacy patrons were more satisfied than traditional pharmacy patrons with their pharmacy services in general (77.6 vs. 72.8, P=0.002), and specifically with the financial aspects and technical quality of those services. After adjusting for general satisfaction with medical care, health status, and select demographic variables, mail pharmacy patrons still had greater levels of general satisfaction with pharmacy services (P=0.036). Respondents with depressive symptoms were less satisfied with aspects of traditional pharmacy services than with mail services, and subjects with airway disease were less satisfied with the turnaround time for mailed prescriptions than for traditional services.


The difference in satisfaction between the patron groups was not large and may not be of practical significance. However, variations in observed satisfaction scores between respondents with and without specific comorbid conditions may be useful from a policy and planning perspective.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.