A theory-informed approach to mental health care capacity building for pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are knowledgeable, accessible health care professionals who can provide services that improve outcomes in mental health care. Various challenges and opportunities can exist in pharmacy practice to hinder or support pharmacists' efforts. We used a theory-informed approach to development and implementation of a capacity-building program to enhance pharmacists' roles in mental health care. METHODS: Theories and frameworks including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Behaviour Change Wheel were used to inform the conceptualization, development, and implementation of a capacity-building program to enhance pharmacists' roles in mental health care. RESULTS: The More Than Meds program was developed and implemented through an iterative process. The main program components included: an education and training day; use of a train-the-trainer approach from partnerships with pharmacists and people with lived experience of mental illness; development of a community of practice through email communications, a website, and a newsletter; and use of educational outreach delivered by pharmacists. Theories and frameworks used throughout the program's development and implementation facilitated a means to conceptualize the component parts of the program as well as its overall presence as a whole from inception through evolution in implementation. Using theoretical foundations for the program enabled critical consideration and understanding of issues related to trialability and adaptability of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Theory was essential to the underlying development and implementation of a capacity-building program for enhancing services by pharmacists for people with lived experience of mental illness. Lessons learned from the development and implementation of this program are informing current research and evolution of the program.
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 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".