A Qualitative Inquiry into the Practice Experiences of Community Pharmacy Managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The connection between community pharmacists' dual role as professionals and businesspeople is most profound for community pharmacy managers. A greater understanding for and appreciation of the practice experiences of community pharmacy managers within a continually changing practice environment was the focus of this study. Methods: Semi-structured, one-on-one telephone interviews with self-identified community pharmacy managers were conducted. Results: Seven interviews were conducted, with a total of 9 themes emerging from the interviews: autonomy, pharmacist behaviour, environment, future, human resources, image, incentives, professional standards and role as manager. Discussion: Despite their common bond as pharmacists and pharmacy managers, interviewees showcased the dynamic nature of community pharmacy practice. Some shared similar thoughts and feelings about the profession and other stakeholders, while others presented opposing views. Conclusions: Community pharmacy managers are the link between pharmacy organizations and employees, including staff pharmacists and others. The dynamic perspective shared by each of these unique professionals highlights the fact that many models and cultures exist in practice today. However, a common vision of putting patients first united all interviewees, a vision that must be relayed to all stakeholders, including patients and employing organizations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".