Barriers to General Practitioner Participation in a Clinical Trial Initiated by Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine general practitioners' (GPs) reasons for not entering patients into a randomized trial that compared outpatient anticoagulation management by community pharmacists with that of physicians. Methods: An anonymous survey was mailed to all GPs who were invited to participate in the anticoagulation study ( n = 118). Results: Completed surveys were received from 78/110 (71%) of GPs who had declined to participate in the anticoagulation study. Of those who had consented to participate, 8/8 completed surveys were received. The top-ranked reasons for not entering patients were “pharmacist should accept legal liability” (40%), “concern about other health care professionals taking over physician responsibilities” (33%), and “concern about responsibility for my patients” (29%). Other frequently cited barriers included concern about pharmacists' ability to manage warfarin patients, general issues related to control over patient care decisions, and lack of time. The top-ranked reason for agreeing to participate was the belief that “research advances the profession” (87%). Shortly after this survey, a statement published by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC reinforced physicians' concern about legal liability and recommended that physicians avoid referring patients to community pharmacy—based anticoagulation programs. Conclusion: Pharmacists who plan to conduct research in the community setting should thoroughly investigate potential barriers to GP involvement in patient recruitment, because of the difficulty in anticipating the most crucial issues. Local physicians may not support pharmacy-based anticoagulation programs, whether or not they are implemented as part of a clinical trial .
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 | 0.048 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".