Public perceptions of pharmacist expanded scope of practice services in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists have been transitioning from traditional dispensing roles toward a much broader scope of practice. The objective of this research was to explore public perceptions of expanded scope of practice (ESOP) services as they relate to pharmacy and pharmacist characteristics. METHODS: The Survey on New Services Offered by Nova Scotia Pharmacists was developed and deployed using in-pharmacy intercept surveys and online public surveys in Nova Scotia. The survey focused on 4 key ESOP elements/services: 1) prescribing for minor ailments (ambulatory conditions), 2) injections and vaccinations, 3) prescription renewals and 4) medication reviews. Data were analyzed using comparisons between groups (multivariate analysis of variance) and principal component analysis. RESULTS: A total of 385 surveys were obtained from the public regarding their perceptions and use of ESOP services (online n = 237, in-pharmacy intercept n = 148). A number of significant differences were found on the basis of respondent sex, age and the location of survey deployment. DISCUSSION: Overall, public perceptions of pharmacists' knowledge and skills in providing ESOP services are positive. A pharmacist's ability to communicate, protect confidentiality and provide quality information regarding medications is important to the public. CONCLUSION: Respondents who already have a good relationship with their pharmacist are more likely to see value in ESOP services. Future public education strategies should focus on factors positively affecting the public's perceptions of ESOP services and should encourage public use of these services through intentional patient education of the benefits of ESOP services and strengthening of the patient-provider relationship.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".