Canadian Survey of Critical Care Pharmacists' Views and Involvement in Clinical Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The involvement of Canadian critical care pharmacists in clinical research is not well documented. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical research experience of Canadian critical care pharmacists, describe their views about clinical research, and identify factors that facilitate their involvement in clinical research. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of Canadian critical care pharmacists was developed through an iterative process and conducted from July to October 2010. We invited 325 pharmacists from 129 hospitals across Canada to participate. Surveys with more than 30% of questions unanswered were discarded. RESULTS: Analyzable response rate was 66.2%. Overall, 33 pharmacists (15.7%) were highly involved in research, 54 (25.7%) were moderately involved, and 123 (58.6%) were minimally involved. Most respondents (97.2%) believed that critical care pharmacist involvement in research was desirable, and many (80.4%) expressed interest to be more involved in research. Nearly all respondents (99.5%) agreed that more support should be provided to pharmacists interested in conducting research. Pharmacists currently involved in research have obtained higher academic degrees (adjusted OR 11.23; p < 0.001), express a strong interest in research (adjusted OR 7.44; p < 0.001), report a higher level of training for involvement in research (adjusted OR 2.23; p = 0.047), and practice more often in a university hospital (adjusted OR 3.68; p = 0.004) within an intensive care unit where involvement in research is valued (adjusted OR 5.61; p < 0.001). Support from pharmacy departments is not related to involvement in research (adjusted OR 1.22; p = 0.633). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian critical care pharmacists are involved to varying degrees in clinical research and are very interested in initiating and supporting research activities. Opportunities are present but significant barriers exist. The value of pharmacist-initiated research needs recognition as a priority within hospital pharmacy administration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".