Community pharmacists’ experiences in mental illness and addictions care: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are accessible health care professionals who encounter people with lived experience of mental illness and addictions in daily practice. Although some existing research supports that community pharmacists' interventions result in improved patient mental health outcomes, gaps in knowledge regarding the pharmacists' experiences with service provision to this population remain. Improving knowledge regarding the pharmacists' experiences with mental illness and addictions service provision can facilitate a better understanding of their perspectives and be used to inform the development and implementation of interventions delivered by community pharmacists for people with lived experience of mental illness and addictions in communities. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using a directed content analysis and the Theoretical Domains Framework as part of our underlying theory of behaviour change and our analytic framework for theme development. The Theoretical Domains Framework facilitates understanding of behaviours of health care professionals and implementation challenges and opportunities for interventions in health care. Thematic analysis co-occurred throughout the process of the directed content analysis. We recruited community pharmacists, with experience dispensing psychotropics, at a minimum, through multiple mechanisms (e.g., professional associations) in a convenience sampling approach. Potential participants were offered the option of focus groups or interviews. RESULTS: Data were collected from one focus group and two interviews involving six pharmacists. Theoretical Domains Framework coding was primarily weighted in two domains: social/professional role and identity and environmental context and resources. We identified five main themes in the experiences of pharmacists in mental illness and addictions care: competing interests, demands, and time; relationships, rapport, and trust; stigma; collaboration and triage; and role expectations and clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists are not practicing to their full scope of practice in mental illness and addictions care for several reasons including limitations within the work environment and lack of structures and processes in place to be fully engaged as health care professionals. More research and policy work are needed to examine better integration of pharmacists as members of the mental health care team in communities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".