Family Physicians' Perceptions of Pharmacy Adaptation Services in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2008, the BC provincial government introduced legislation that enabled pharmacists to adapt prescriptions. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions, attitudes and practices of family physicians as they relate to pharmacy adaptation services. Methods: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with physicians in 4 of the 5 regional health authorities of BC (Fraser, Interior, Vancouver Coastal and Vancouver Island) and transcripts were thematically coded and analyzed. Results: Forty physicians participated in the 4 focus groups and 4 physicians participated in supplementary interviews. Physicians perceived 6 key concerns arising from the initiative: compromised patient monitoring, physician liability, physician burden, pharmacists' ability to make appropriate adaptations, conflicts of interest and impact on physician-pharmacist relationships. Physicians also believed that communication about the adaptation initiative was inadequate and that they were not sufficiently included in its development. Interpretation: Most of the participating physicians had received very few, if any, prescription adaptations; hence their concerns about the potential impact of such adaptations are mostly speculative. They also indicated a lack of information concerning the details of the initiative and the scope of what pharmacists are permitted to adapt. However, whether or not their perceptions are accurate, physicians' beliefs about prescription adaptations will affect their acceptance of the initiative and thus their concerns need to be addressed. Conclusions: Physicians are essential stakeholders in the prescribing process. To ensure that physicians support pharmacy adaptation services, their concerns should be addressed in the adaptation guidelines and efforts should be made to include them in discussions and provide them with detailed communications.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".