Retaining Pharmacists in Rural Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Multistakeholder Framework of Rurality project was funded by Health Canada's Rural and Remote Health Innovations Initiative. The aim of this project was to develop a tool to assist rural communities with health human resource planning and to help governments and communities in recruiting and retaining health care providers in rural and remote communities. Methods: A national survey was sent to nurses, physicians, and pharmacists living in rural or remote communities to determine, among other factors, satisfaction with their personal and professional lives in those communities. One of the questions asked in the survey was “Do you plan to be in practice in the community in two years?” Results: Completed surveys were returned by 1019 pharmacists. Pharmacists who were married, had children living at home, were between the ages of 35 and 54 years, and had between 6 and 24 years in practice were more likely to say they would remain in the community. Communities where there were better working hours, better availability of coverage and backup, higher earning potential, and greater opportunities were more likely to retain pharmacists, as were communities where there were better opportunities for family members. Pharmacists were also more likely to state an intention to remain in communities where they had a sense of belonging and a sense of being appreciated. Multivariate predictors of pharmacists' intent to remain were children living at home, professional factors, and personal factors. Conclusions/Implications: Despite some study limitations, the results presented here could be used to help communities select pharmacists who are most likely to remain in practice in the communities for longer periods. Community attributes such as distance to large population centres cannot be changed, but attributes that contribute to personal and professional satisfaction could be altered.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".