Ontario Family Physician Readiness to Collaborate with Community Pharmacists on Drug Therapy Management: Lessons for Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Collaboration between community pharmacists and physicians with respect to drug therapy management occurs relatively infrequently. There has been little research on physicians' views about such collaboration. The primary objective of this study was to assess Ontario family physicians' attitudes and readiness to collaborate with community pharmacists on drug therapy management. Methods: A 3-page survey instrument inquiring about 3 collaborative behaviours was distributed by fax or mail to a random sample of 848 family physicians and general practitioners across Ontario. Nonrespondents received 2 reminders. Results: The survey response rate was 36%. Most physicians reported conversing with a community pharmacist about a patient's drug therapy management 5 or fewer times per week, and very few said they used pharmacists as their primary source of medication information. Eighty-four percent reported that they regularly took community pharmacists' phone calls, while 78% reported that they sometimes sought pharmacists' recommendations regarding patient drug therapy. Only 28% reported that they sometimes referred their patients to community pharmacists for medication reviews, with 44% being unaware that such a service existed. Most comments were favourable, typically providing positive examples of collaboration with pharmacists. The most important identified advantage of collaborating with community pharmacists was more accurate medication lists. The main disadvantage identified was that pharmacists are constrained by not having access to key patient information (e.g., diagnosis, lab results, consultant reports). Additional barriers to collaboration reported by physicians included rotating pharmacists and perceived pharmacist interference with physicians' drug therapy plans. Conclusion: Overall, Ontario family physicians were engaged in limited collaboration with community pharmacists. By making an effort to increase the frequency of their direct professional interactions with physicians, pharmacists can enhance physician awareness of their willingness to provide patient-oriented services, thus facilitating collaboration.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".