Characteristics of Pharmacists Who Enrolled in the Pilot ADAPT Education Program: Implications for Practice Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that patient-centred pharmacist interventions can be effective in a wide range of practice settings and disease states.1–6 In recent years, several Canadian jurisdictions have begun to pay for pharmacist-led clinical services such as medication reviews, minor ailment management and smoking cessation counselling.7 Unfortunately, it has been widely reported that uptake of these services is often unimpressive, even when remuneration is available. 8,9 Several barriers to practice change have been previously identified, including pharmacists' time constraints, patient apathy, limited support from physicians and pharmacy managers, disruption of workflow, inadequate reimbursement and even the culture of the pharmacy profession.10,11 Consequently, progress towards realizing pharmacists' full potential within the health system continues to be very slow.10 However, some pharmacists do embrace change and successfully implement new interventions, despite the systemic barriers that exist.12 These individuals take on risks and new responsibilities to defy the cultural norms set by their colleagues. Unfortunately, little is known about these early-adopters and what makes them succeed. A detailed evaluation of the participants in the pilot of the ADAPT (ADapting pharmacists' skills and Approaches to maximize Patient's drug Therapy effectiveness) Education Program may provide some insight. This paper describes the ADAPT pilot participants' demographics, characteristics, preparedness, motivation and reasons for participating. The goal of this paper is to better understand the pharmacists who were willing to engage with this novel, timeintensive education program. This information can provide valuable insight into the types of pharmacists striving to change their 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".