Measuring perceptions of health care as a commodity or as a public right among community pharmacists in Saskatchewan
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian health care system is primarily public funded. With constant rise in health care costs, there is debate on how to best fund Canadian health care. Public, private and mixed funding options are being discussed. The funding options people support will depend on how they view the health care system. Is health care a commodity or a public right? Pharmacists interact with patients daily and are involved in the delivery of health services. Their views on whether health care should be a public right or a commodity can add meaningful input to the debate.The primary objective of this study was to develop a scale to measure pharmacists’ perceptions of health care as a commodity or a public right. In turn, this scale was used to see if a relationship exists between pharmacists’ orientation to health care (commodity vs. public right) and their support for different health care funding options. A mail-in survey of community pharmacists in Saskatchewan was conducted based on the Dillman approach. The questionnaire consisted primarily of six-point Likert scale questions. Data analysis was performed using non-parametric tests such as Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis tests. One-way ANOVA was used for parametric data and post-hoc analysis was performed using Bonferroni test. Correlation of the scales was tested using Spearman’s and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The response rate achieved was 64.2%.The study results indicate that pharmacists are not willing to provide cognitive services free of charge. However, they are willing to continue providing OTC drug counseling free of charge. They will not restrict provision of cognitive services only to patients’ able pay. They prefer being reimbursed through other sources. They are unwilling to make time and income adjustments to improve patient health outcomes. They do not want to link the financial rewards they receive to the amount of benefit the patient receives.Pharmacists favour the current system of funding health care in Canada but would prefer more choice in the delivery and funding methods. The results do not indicate any relationship between pharmacists orientation to health care (commodity vs. public right) and their level of support for different health care funding strategies. The study conclusions suggest that pharmacists’ value and appreciate the direct impact of their work on patients. However they consider themselves to be professionals first and expect to be compensated financially for their services. Their willingness to spend time and effort towards provision of services as a public right seems to be predicated to a certain extent by the financial rewards they receive.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».