MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310670976 · doi:10.14288/1.0098934

The drug formulary approval process in select Canadian hospitals

2009· article· en· W2310670976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mel Matthew D’Sa

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyProcess (computing)DrugBusinessDrug approvalInternet privacyMedicineComputer sciencePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the many responsibilities of the profession of pharmacy is to serve as a gatekeeper for pharmaceuticals. In contemporary hospital practice one way that pharmacy fulfills this responsibility is through its involvement in the multidisciplinary pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee. By using a formulary system, a P&T committee generates a drug formulary. In essence, a drug formulary is a restricted drug list that reflects the current clinical judgement of the medical staff. It also represents a list of drugs approved for use within a hospital. However, research in the literature has identified various influences of a political, organizational, societal, legal, professional, and economic nature that have the potential to impact on the drug formulary approval process. The attitudes and opinions of key clinical decision makers such as pharmacy directors and P&T committee chairs concerning the drug formulary approval process have not been documented in the Canadian literature. This study reports the results of a national mail survey conducted to examine the attitudes and opinions of select hospital pharmacy directors and P&T committee chairs with respect to the current and future drug formulary approval process. Also obtained was information concerning demographic and organizational aspects of a large number of hospitals. The hypothesis tested is that pharmacy directors and P&T committee chairs do not believe that the drug formulary approval process will demonstrably change in the next five to ten years. Also, identified items in the literature are not expected to have significant influence on the future process. It appears that the drug formulary approval process in Canadian hospitals is a function of many underlying influences. The actual process itself is not expected to change. However, various influences, especially those of an economic nature, are expected to significantly impact the future process. Findings have implications for health care professionals, hospitals, hospital P&T committees, governments, thirdparty payers, drug companies, and pharmaceutical industry analysts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207