Factors Shaping Pharmacists’ Adoption of Prescribing in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian pharmacists received prescribing authority in 2007 and at present, Albertan pharmacists have the broadest scope of practice in the North America. The expanded scope of practice including prescribing activities was warranted to improve healthcare services. There have been noteworthy discussions in the literature on pharmacist prescribing. However, existing literature were predominantly focused on the outcome of pharmacist prescribing and stakeholders’ perception about pharmacist prescribing in Canada. Little was known about the diffusion and adoption process of prescribing into the pharmacy practice. Therefore, the overarching objective of this thesis was to understand pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing in Alberta by applying Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory. To achieve this objective, we developed a conceptual model using DoI, Self-efficacy, Role belief, and Relational coordination theories and conducted five studies: 1) A scoping review to characterize existing literature on pharmacist prescribing in Canada according to research type, methodological trend, and key findings; 2) Development of a survey questionnaire to explore pharmacist prescribing adoption and establishment of the psychometric validity of the scales using factor analysis; 3) Characterizing pharmacists according to their self-reported prescribing practice using cluster analysis; 4) Exploring factors predicting pharmacist prescribing frequency and types using regression analysis; and 5) Family physicians’ experiences and perceptions of pharmacist prescribing using the Interpretive Description method. In the scoping review, we found that quantitative studies were mostly focused on measuring the outcome of pharmacist prescribing whereas; qualitative studies explored stakeholders’ perceptions. The review also suggested gaps in the evaluation of pharmacist prescribing adoption, impact on physicians’ practice, comparison of prescribing practice across provinces, and its impact on the economic system. In the second study, we developed a survey questionnaire and established the validity of five scales measuring potential predictors of pharmacist prescribing adoption – self-efficacy, prescribing belief, support from practice, impact on practice, and use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR). In the third study, we ran a secondary analysis of the survey data by applying cluster analysis and identified three major types of prescriber- “Renewal prescriber,” “Modifier”, and “Wide ranged prescriber”. The group comparisons confirmed the expected characteristics of the groups and provided evidence of the validity of the groups. In the fourth study, on exploring factors predicting pharmacist prescribing adoption, we identified practice setting, support from practice, self-efficacy, and year of experience as the significant predictors of pharmacist prescribing frequency. On the other hand, pharmacists’ practice setting and self-efficacy toward prescribing were significantly associated with the types of pharmacist prescribing adoption. In the fifth study, the qualitative exploration of family physicians’ experience and perception provided us insight on physician-pharmacist collaboration while pharmacists are adopting prescribing activities. We found three key beliefs (i.e., renewal versus initiating new prescription, community versus team pharmacist, and “I am responsible”) that shaped the physician-pharmacist prescriber collaboration. Two themes emerged from the analysis of collaboration process- trust and communication. We also found gaps in awareness and communication strategies to foster collaboration. The overall findings of this thesis suggest that features of practice setting, pharmacists’ attributes, and interprofessional collaboration with physicians shaped the pharmacist prescribing adoption in Alberta. Other jurisdictions that are planning to authorize pharmacist prescribing can reflect on our findings. Pharmacy researchers, policy-makers, and pharmacists themselves can play key roles in the successful adoption of pharmacist prescribing and improve the efficiency of health care system. Future research might evaluate the change in healthcare delivery system resulting from pharmacist prescribing as well as alterations in the relational dynamics between physician and pharmacist prescribers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».