A qualitative Assessment of Practice Experiences of Certified Diabetes Educator (CDE) pharmacists in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Pharmacists are a rapidly growing segment of certified diabetes educators (CDEs) in Canada; however, little is known about their practice experiences. Objective: This study aimed to describe the practice experiences of CDE pharmacists and the impact of the CDE designation. Methods: A qualitative research approach was used. A purposive sample of 14 CDE pharmacists in Saskatchewan was selected to obtain data by means of in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and NVivo10 software. Findings: Four themes emerged from the data: (1) CDE pharmacists engage in a multitude of diabetes-related activities, (2) becoming a CDE has been beneficial, (3) certain challenges still exist when trying to provide diabetes-related education, and (4) strategies were proposed to try and overcome these challenges. CDE pharmacists are engaging in both broad and focused diabetes management, such as insulin starts and adjustments. Pharmacists are satisfied that the CDE designation has helped achieve some of their goals and have benefited from improved relationships with other health care professionals. Although some solutions were offered, CDE pharmacists still face challenges in putting their knowledge to full use with respect to devoting time to diabetes management and remuneration for providing diabetes services. Conclusions: CDE pharmacists in Saskatchewan report enhanced diabetes-related activities prior to becoming a CDE and that designation has had a positive impact on them and perhaps their patients. This information could prove useful to employers and payers as the number of CDE pharmacists continues to increase. However, more information is necessary to describe CDE pharmacist practice experiences across Canada.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".