Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the changing role of the pharmacist in patient-centred practice, pharmacists anecdotally reported little confidence in their clinical decision-making skills and do not feel responsible for their patients. Observational findings have suggested these trends within the profession, but there is a paucity of evidence to explain why. We conducted an exploratory study with an objective to identify reasons for the lack of responsibility and/or confidence in various pharmacy practice settings. METHODS: Pharmacist interviews were conducted via written response, face-to-face or telephone. Seven questions were asked on the topic of responsibility and confidence as it applies to pharmacy practice and how pharmacists think these themes differ in medicine. Interview transcripts were analyzed and divided by common theme. Quotations to support these themes are presented. RESULTS: Twenty-nine pharmacists were asked to participate, and 18 responded (62% response rate). From these interviews, 6 themes were identified as barriers to confidence and responsibility: hierarchy of the medical system, role definitions, evolution of responsibility, ownership of decisions for confidence building, quality and consequences of mentorship and personality traits upon admission. DISCUSSION: We identified 6 potential barriers to the development of pharmacists' self-confidence and responsibility. These findings have practical applicability for educational research, future curriculum changes, experiential learning structure and pharmacy practice. Due to bias and the limitations of this form of exploratory research and small sample size, evidence should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists feel neither responsible nor confident for their clinical decisions due to social, educational, experiential and personal reasons. Can Pharm J 2013;146:155-161.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".