Survey of pharmacist prescribing practices in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Results of a survey to characterize pharmacist prescribing in the Canadian province of Alberta are reported. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of pharmacists registered with the Alberta College of Pharmacists was conducted. The survey was developed in four stages, with evidence of reliability and construct validity compiled. Analysis of variance and chi-square testing were used to compare prescribing behaviors. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty of 692 invited pharmacists (51%) completed the survey, with 76.9% and 11.1% indicating that they practiced in community and hospital settings, respectively, and 12.0% practicing in a consultant role (i.e., on a primary care team or in a long-term care setting). Overall, 93.4% of the pharmacists had prescribed. The most common practices were renewing prescriptions for continuity of therapy (92.3%), altering doses (74.3%), and substituting a medication due to a shortage (80.6%). Twenty-three pharmacists (6.6%) indicated that they did not prescribe because they were on an interprofessional team, had a consulting role, or preferred to fax physicians to request orders. Pharmacists with additional prescribing authorization (6.3% of the total survey population) were more likely to prescribe to adjust ongoing medications (63.6%) than to initiate a new medication (18.2%). CONCLUSION: A survey showed that Alberta pharmacists prescribed in a manner that mirrored their practice environment. Compared with other groups, hospital and consultant pharmacists were more likely to adapt prescriptions, and community pharmacists were more likely to renew medications. Pharmacists in rural areas were prescribing most frequently.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".