Pharmacists' Preferences for Providing Patient-Centered Services: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Guide Health Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, most pharmacists are not paid to provide patient-centered services. In other areas of the world these services have suffered from poor adoption by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine pharmacists' preferences for providing patient-centered services. METHODS: Senior pharmacy students and pharmacists in British Columbia and Alberta were recruited to complete a discrete choice experiment. In 18 different choice-sets, respondents were asked to choose 1 of 3 options that included 2 different hypothetical patient-centered services and a status quo option. For each hypothetical service, we described the following attributes: service type and setting, personal income and job satisfaction, professional fee, and educational requirements. Multinomial logit and latent class regression models determined respondents' relative preference weights for each attribute. RESULTS: Of 539 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 49% were dispensary pharmacists or managers, 12% were dispensary owners or regional managers, 21% were clinical pharmacists, and 16% were students. When choosing new services, respondents were very averse to having their personal income or job satisfaction decrease. They also preferred a higher professional fee for the service (to be paid to the pharmacy) and preferred a weeklong course or a preceptorship over no education before embarking on new services. Respondents also preferred medication or disease management services, were not interested in screening, and were averse to typical pharmacy services. Finally, respondents preferred the clinic setting over the dispensary. Preferences differed according to several factors including respondents' employment and time in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists prefer to provide patient-centered services over typical pharmacy services. Most will need to be assured that their income and job satisfaction will be maintained or increased and that they will have access to suitable advanced education. Decision-makers should carefully consider these preferences to improve program success and sustainability.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".