Pharmacy Faculty Members' Perception of Contemporary Pharmacy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Previous research has shown that community pharmacists describe their role mostly in product-focused rather than patient-centred terms. We wondered if pharmacy faculty members think similarly, which might influence how students, and subsequently, new pharmacists think. The objective of this study was to examine how pharmacy faculty members describe the health care role of pharmacists. Method: We telephoned 101 randomly selected Canadian pharmacy faculty members. The surveyor posed as a sociology student studying the use of language. We asked a single question: “What does a pharmacist do?,” asking respondents to answer in a few short phrases that were recorded verbatim. Responses were analyzed by content and categories were established from previous studies, coded as “patient-centred,” “product-focused (dispensing),” “research” or “business-related.” Results: Ninety-four faculty members (71% were pharmacists) provided 200 responses. Of the responses, 40% were categorized as patient-centred, 32.5% were product-focused and 5% were research- or business-related. Evaluating participants' first responses, faculty members who were pharmacists offered a patient-centred description in 59% of responses, while non-pharmacists provided a more pro duct-focused description. The most frequently used terms to describe a pharmacist's role were: patient, medication, educate, dispense, responsible, safety and ensure. Conclusions: Pharmacy faculty members' perception of the role of pharmacists may influence the culture of the profession. We found that faculty members were more idealistic about patient-centred roles for pharmacists than community or hospital pharmacists, but a large proportion (mainly nonpharmacist faculty members) still describe a product-focused role.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".