Pharmacy Owner and Manager Perceptions of Pharmacy Adaptation Services in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As of January 2009, pharmacists in British Columbia (BC) have been able to adapt prescriptions to provide renewals; change the dosage, formulation or regimen; and substitute therapeutically equivalent therapies for reasons of cost or continuity of care. Objectives: To describe and characterize pharmacy manager and owner perceptions of pharmacy adaptation services in BC. Methods: Over a 1-month period, pharmacy owners, dispensary managers and regional managers from “high-adapter” pharmacies (>60 adaptations/month) and “low-adapter” pharmacies (<10 adaptations/month) were interviewed. During the semi-structured interviews, participants were asked to comment on uptake, cost, revenue and general perceptions of adaptation services. All data were assessed using content analysis. Results: Very few capital costs were incurred. Those costs included additional human resource costs (training and staff), updating computer software to produce physician notification forms, fax machine upgrades, additional physical storage and paper. The other emerging themes from the interviews included sustainability, patient and physician knowledge of the program, perceived benefits of the program, suggested changes to the program, high-adapting pharmacies as being champions of pharmacy adaptation services and potential barriers to adoption within a pharmacy. Discussion: In general, few changes were made as a result of the adaptation program and minimal capital costs were incurred. The documentation stage was the most labour-intensive aspect of adapting prescriptions. Perceived benefits related to providing the patient with continuity of care. Most of the suggested changes involved reducing restrictions on the program and providing greater opportunities for pharmacists to exercise their clinical judgment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".