Survey of Pharmacist Activities and Attitudes in Diabetes Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With the epidemic of diabetes in our population, pharmacists must become more actively involved in the management of this chronic illness. This study was designed to examine the relationship between diabetes-specific training and pharmacists' activities in and attitudes toward diabetes management. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of licensed pharmacists in Alberta. Respondents were grouped according to diabetes-specific training: Certified Diabetes Educator, completion of one or more diabetes-specific continuing education courses or no diabetes-specific training. A list of 67 activities related to diabetes management was generated through a review of the literature describing activities related to pharmacist involvement in diabetes management, national guideline recommendations, indicators for best practice and discussions with pharmacists specializing in diabetes management. Survey respondents were asked how frequently they provided each of these activities. Attitudes were measured using the Diabetes Attitude Scale. Results: Certified Diabetes Educators reported conducting significantly more activities related to diabetes management, especially in the areas of patient education in self-monitoring of blood glucose, hypoglycemia management, sick-day management, diabetes drug therapy and management of comorbid diseases. Pharmacists who had completed diabetes-specific continuing education courses and pharmacists with no diabetes-specific training reported similar levels of activities. There was a significant and graded relationship between attitudes and diabetes-specific training. Conclusion: Pharmacists with more advanced, experiential-based training and national certification consistently reported providing more activities related to diabetes practice and generally held more positive attitudes toward the disease and its management, compared to other pharmacists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".