Provincial Drug Plan Officials' Views of the Canadian Drug Safety System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian constitution divides the responsibility for pharmaceuticals between the federal and provincial governments. While the provincial governments are responsible for establishing public formularies, the majority of the safety and efficacy information that the provinces use comes from the federal government. We interviewed drug plan officials from eight of the ten provinces and two of three territories regarding their views on the Canadian drug safety system. Here we report on the following categories: the federal drug approval system; the strengths and weaknesses of the federal system of postmarket pharmaceutical safety (i.e., pharmacosurveillance); resources available to support provincial formulary decision making; provincial roles in pharmacosurveillance; how the drug safety system could be improved; and the role of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, a recently established virtual network designed to connect researchers throughout Canada who conduct postmarket drug research. Next, we place the Canadian system within an international context by comparing informational asymmetry between government institutions in the United States and the European Union and by looking at how institutions support each other's roles in sharing information and in jointly developing policy through the International Conference on Harmonization. Finally, we draw on international experiences and suggest potential solutions to the concerns that our key informants have identified.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".