Interprofessional health care teams: Attitudes and environmental factors associated with participation by community pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether community pharmacists are prepared to assume a more active role as members of the primary health care team. A secondary objective was to develop multi-items scales for future studies involving pharmacists, as well as other health professions. This paper reports on rates of participation by community pharmacists as members of interprofessional health care teams, the extent to which this participation was related to pharmacists' attitudes about their preparedness for this role, their relationship with physicians, and their assessment of potential barriers to interprofessional teamwork within their practice setting. A mail questionnaire was sent to community pharmacists across Canada between February and April, 2004. The overall response rate was 35.2% (470/1337) with the highest response rate in the Prairie Provinces (40.6%) and the lowest in Quebec (24.4%). Pharmacists on teams were more likely to agree their training and skills were sufficient to participate, and to report good relations with physicians. Pharmacists on teams were more likely to agree there was more opportunity to meet and get to know other health disciplines, and to see teamwork as part of their role. They were also more likely to agree physicians wanted their input, and less likely to see other disciplines as being too protective of their professional "turf". Pharmacists on teams did not differ from those not on teams in rating lack of time, bad past experiences with teamwork, financial reimbursement or proximity to other health care workers as barriers to being a member of a community-based primary care team.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".