Martine Kruijtbosch

106 Chap t e r 3. 2 TABLE 5: MRP rating and MRP ranking score percentages of Dutch community pharmacists (N = 267) for three moral reasoning perspectives in three drug shortage scenarios MRPs a in the Contraceptive scenario MRPs a in the Parkinson’s scenario MRPs a in the Osteoporosis scenario BO RR PE BO RR PE BO RR PE Considerations b C5, C6, C11, C13 C1, C4, C7, C9 C2, C3, C10, C12 P3, P8, P12, P13 P2, P4, P10, P11 P1, P5, P7, P9 O1, O9, O11, O13 O2, O4, O7, O8 O3, O5, O10, O12 MRP rating score c percentage (%) 28.9 32.1 39.0 23.2 32.4 44.4 24.4 30.3 45.3 MRP ranking score d e percentage (%) 15.3 24.4 60.2 6.5 21.3 72.1 14.1 16.9 68.6 a Moral reasoning perspectives (MRPs): BO = Business orientation MRP RR = Rules and regulations MRP PE = Professional ethics MRP b Considerations: C (1–13) = Considerations of Contraception drug shortage scenario P (1–13) = Considerations of Parkinson’s drug shortage scenario O (1–13) = Considerations of Osteoporosis drug shortage scenario c The MRP rating score percentage for each MRP is based on the rating data for four considerations that represent each perspective d The MRP ranking score percentage for each MRP is based on the ranking data and only for the ranked considerations of each perspective e The MRP ranking score percentages for the three MRPs in each drug shortage scenario do not add up to 100 because seven respondents ranked one meaningless consideration (0 points); for these participants, the three MRP ranking scores for each scenario do not reach a total of 10 points