MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1589245162 · doi:10.18433/j3w302

Predictors of Pharmacy Students’ Intentions to Monitor Diabetes

2009· article· en· W1589245162 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa M. Guirguis, Betty Chewning, Mara Kieser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyDiabetes mellitusCommunity pharmacyMultilevel modelMedical educationPsychologyMedicineSelf-efficacyFamily medicineRegression analysisClinical psychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This research explores predictors of pharmacy students' adoption of one specific behavior, monitoring diabetes ABCs (A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol) in the community pharmacy. Specifically, this research assessed which student situation and attitudinal factors are predictors of students' intentions and behavior in asking patients about the diabetes targets and goals as per a conceptual model. METHODS: Data was drawn from a randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of the diabetes check in pharmacy students during their community pharmacy clerkships. A survey measured students' self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, role beliefs, mattering as well as students' experiences with the Diabetes Check and intentions to routinely monitor diabetes. Stepwise hierarchical multiple linear regression reflected the conceptual model and was used to assess the research questions. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 94% and analysis was performed on a sample of 118 students. In summary, pharmacy students' intentions and monitoring behaviors were predicted by the students' situation and attitudes. Specifically, students' intentions to ask patients about the diabetes ABCs were predicted by pharmacy site counseling, monitoring role beliefs, self-efficacy, and positive outcome expectancies. Mattering predicted intentions, but differently in each study group. Behavior in asking about patients with diabetes about blood pressure and cholesterol was predicted by pharmacy site counseling, self efficacy, and monitoring role beliefs. Students' behavior in asking about A1c was pharmacy site counseling, self efficacy, and monitoring role beliefs in additional to completing the Diabetes Check assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring intentions and behaviors were consistently predicted by pharmacy site counseling, monitoring role beliefs, and self-efficacy and future research investigating the pharmacists' behavior should include these variables. The role of mattering and outcome expectancies in predicting monitoring intentions requires further study.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences→Same topicDiabetes Management and Education→French-language works237,207→