Narrative Reports to Monitor and Evaluate the Integration of Pharmacists Into Family Practice Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Narratives can capture unfolding events and negotiation of roles and thus can help to evaluate interventions in interdisciplinary health care teams. We describe a practical qualitative method, the narrative report, and its role in evaluating implementation research. METHODS: We used narrative reports as a means to evaluate an intervention to integrate pharmacists into group family practices. The pharmacists submitted 63 written narrative reports during a 1-year period. Our interdisciplinary research team analyzed these reports to monitor the progress of the implementation, to identify pharmacists' needs, and to capture elements of the integration process. RESULTS: The monthly narrative reports allowed the research team to document early learning and calibrate the program in terms of clinical support, adapting roles, and realigning expectations. The reports helped the research team stay in tune with practice-related implementation challenges, and the preliminary summary of narrative findings provided a forum for sharing innovations among the integrating pharmacists. CONCLUSION: The narrative report can be a successful qualitative tool to track and evaluate the early stages of an intervention in the context of evolving primary health care teams.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".