Physician Perceptions of Enhanced Community Pharmacist Care in Cholesterol Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP) was a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated that community pharmacist intervention improved cholesterol management for patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The objective of this sub-study was to describe physician perceptions of the intervention program. Design: Surveys were mailed to all physicians contacted as part of the enhanced pharmacist care program within SCRIP. Physician opinions were collected on pharmacist participation in cholesterol management and the impact of the program on patient management and outcomes. Results: We received 141 usable surveys from 239 eligible physicians, a response rate of 59%. Of those who responded, 110 (78%) remembered components of the enhanced pharmacist care program, and 77 (55%) were in favour of the pharmacist's recommendations. Of the 110 physicians who recalled the intervention, 27 (25%) agreed that the program improved cholesterol management, and 11 (10%) felt the program had a major effect on patient outcomes; however, only 41 (37%) felt the program was helpful or useful. Written comments reflected opinions that the program duplicates current services and that physicians have reservations about the expanding role of pharmacists. Despite these general comments, similar interventions for other medical conditions were welcomed. Conclusions: Physicians had mixed attitudes toward the enhanced pharmacist care program. Despite these opinions, the main results of SCRIP were very positive. Indeed, if the physician opinions of the program had been more positive, the impact might have been even greater. The effectiveness of future programs may be enhanced through improved communication of the program's goals and collaboration of all stakeholders early in the program's implementation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".