Practice‐Based Research: Lessons from Community Pharmacist Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We designed this project to determine community pharmacists' opinions regarding the challenges and motivations of their recent participation in a pharmacy practice-based research study At the conclusion of a randomized, multicenter study, 87 community pharmacist-investigators were sent a questionnaire that explored four areas: motivating factors to participate, barriers to participation, communication tools used by study coordinators, and design issues for future studies. Fifty-eight (67%) completed questionnaires were returned. Key factors motivating participation in the study were desire to improve the profession and opportunity to learn. Time was the greatest barrier to participation. Pharmacy practice-based research has two distinct advantages. First, it translates clinical knowledge into direct application in the community. Second, it provides needed data to demonstrate the value of enhanced pharmacy practice. Thorough understanding of pharmacists' opinions is necessary to optimize the design of future studies.
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 | 0.143 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".