The acceptability of contraception task-sharing among pharmacists in Canada — the ACT-Pharm study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to prescription contraception is often limited by the availability of physicians, particularly in rural areas. Pharmacists are available but are not authorized in Canada to prescribe contraceptives, an innovation proved successful in the United States. It is unknown whether Canadian pharmacists, particularly those in rural areas, are willing to adopt this innovation and what barriers and facilitators they predict. We explored the acceptability and feasibility for independent provision of contraception at pharmacies throughout British Columbia (BC). METHODS: This mixed-methods study used validated questionnaires followed by optional structured interviews among all rural, and a sample of urban, community pharmacies in BC. Analyses use descriptive, logistic regression and qualitative thematic evaluation. RESULTS: Responding community pharmacies represent all geographic health regions of BC and the range of pharmacy business models. Respondents reported a mean of 17 years in practice. Seventy percent of pharmacies reported a private counseling area. Over 80%, including pharmacies in all regions, indicated willingness to prescribe hormonal contraceptives. Factors associated with willingness to prescribe were comfort using a protocol to assess sexual history, confidence about staff availability and public acceptability, and fewer years in practice. Pharmacists requested training in assessment protocols and liability issues prior to implementation. INTERPRETATION: Pharmacies from all areas throughout BC, responded and report a high degree of acceptability and feasibility for independent prescription of hormonal contraceptives. As pharmacists are often the most accessible health professional in rural areas, pharmacist provision of hormonal contraceptives has potential to improve access to contraception.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".