MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034882594 · doi:10.3821/1913-701x-142.3.136

Study of Understanding Pharmacists' Perspectives on Remuneration and Transition toward Chronic Disease Management (SUPPORT-CDM): Results of an Alberta-Wide Survey of Community Pharmacists

2009· article· en· W2034882594 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ellen Mah, Meagen Rosenthal, Ross T. Tsuyuki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRemunerationPharmacistStaffingScope of practiceMedicineFamily medicineNursingPaymentPharmacyClinical pharmacyBusinessHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Strong evidence supports the benefits of pharmacist intervention and chronic disease management (CDM) for patients, yet most pharmacists are not providing such services. The purpose of this study was to better understand pharmacists' perceptions of CDM and potential remuneration models. Methods: We developed and tested a web-based survey based on the issues identified in a series of focus groups involving pharmacists: current practice setting, education, remuneration models, current practice environment and implementation. An invitation to complete the survey was e-mailed to registered pharmacists and was included in a weekly newsletter to Alberta pharmacists in January 2008, with 3 subsequent reminders to complete the survey. Results: Responses from 140 pharmacists were included. Pharmacists were most interested in providing CDM for diabetes (79%), although only 49% were presently comfortable with managing diabetes. The top enablers for provision of CDM included pharmacists' desire to change their scope of practice, a supportive work environment and patient demand. The top barriers included a lack of time to engage in CDM, lack of remuneration and staffing issues. Interestingly, relatively few identified pharmacists' resistance to change and difficulty finding eligible patients (38% and 25%, respectively) as important barriers. The majority of pharmacists agreed that payment should be shared between the pharmacy and the pharmacist as a fee-for-service. The average amount pharmacists expected for this model was $44.23/service. Conclusions: Pharmacists showed interest but may lack the confidence to provide CDM services to patients. Many of the facilitators and barriers point toward the need for a sustainable remuneration model for pharmacists' clinical care. We plan to use these results to help develop such a model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207