Listening for Prescriptions: A National Consultation on Pharmaceutical Policy Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Pharmaceutical policy is an increasingly costly, essential and challenging component of health system management. We sought to identify priority pharmaceutical policy issues in Canada and to translate them into research priorities using key informant interviews, stakeholder surveys and a deliberative workshop. RESULTS: WE FOUND CONSENSUS ON OVERARCHING POLICY GOALS: to provide all Canadians with equitable and sustainable access to necessary medicines. We also found widespread frustration that many key pharmaceutical policy issues in Canada - including improving prescription drug financing and pricing - have been persistent challenges owing to a lack of policy coordination. The coverage of extraordinarily costly medicines for serious conditions was identified as a rapidly emerging policy issue. CONCLUSION: Targeted research and knowledge translation activities can help address key policy issues and, importantly, challenges of policy coordination in Canada and thereby reduce inequity and inefficiency in policy approaches and outcomes.
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 | 0.044 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".