How does ownership type influence the role orientation and professional autonomy of community pharmacy managers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9 5 As community pharmacists seek to redefine and expand their role in health care, the business structure in which the profession is practised is increasingly changing from small-scale entrepreneurship to corporate ownership. Among health professions, pharmacy is in a unique position — the large majority of community pharmacists practise their profession within an overtly commercial environment. On a daily basis the community pharmacist must balance professional and commercial responsibilities — providing a skilled service in the preparation and dispensing of medications while selling commodities for profit in distributing that medication.1 Within community pharmacies, pharmacy managers are intimately involved in both professional and business aspects of pharmacy practice. A business orientation and corresponding objectives that focus on maximizing shareholder value2 may not be in line with the professional objectives of pharmacy. As well, when pharmacists allow business objectives to influence their professional conduct — whether intended or not — commitment to the patient’s well-being can be compromised.3 While corporate, non-pharmacist ownership increases, opportunity to develop and introduce cognitive services, as well as participate in other professional activities with less reliable revenue potential, more in keeping with the professional ideal of pharmacy, may be limited.3-5 The purpose of this study is to increase our understanding of the challenges that exist for community pharmacy managers in Canada with regard to their dual role as professionals and businesspeople within various ownership structures. As well, how does ownership structure — independent, franchise, or corporate — relate to the role orientation and professional autonomy of community pharmacy managers?
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".