What prescribing means to pharmacists: a qualitative exploration of practising pharmacists in Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2007 Alberta, Canada, became the first North American jurisdiction to adopt prescribing legislation for pharmacists. In light of these legislative changes and expanded scope of pharmacy practice, we evaluated what ‘prescribing’ means to pharmacists in Alberta and the application of prescribing in pharmacy practice. METHODS: We invited pharmacists to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews using closed and open-ended questions. Pharmacists working in community, hospital or other settings were selected using a mix of random and purposive sampling. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed, and data were entered into nVIVO 9 software. Transcriptions were analysed by two investigators using an interpretive description approach to identify themes. KEY FINDINGS: Thirty-eight pharmacists were interviewed, of whom 13 had additional (independent) prescribing authorization. Prescribing had a wide breadth of meaning to the pharmacists in our study, which included writing a new prescription and extending an existing prescription, as well as advising on non-prescription medications. Pharmacists described prescribing in terms of the physical act of writing the prescription and as part of the patient care process as well as the legislated definition of pharmacist prescribing. The sense of increased responsibility associated with prescribing was noted by many pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Prescribing had diverse meanings to pharmacists in our study, and appeared to be context-specific. Understanding the meaning prescribing holds for individual pharmacists is important to explore whether pharmacist's definition of this expanded scope has shaped pharmacists’ enactment of prescribing practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it