Pharmacists' expectations of a pharmacy network:a baseline evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine community pharmacists' perceived value of a pharmacy network prior to its implementation. A questionnaire was mailed to all 435 community pharmacists practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2002, with 217 completed questionnaires returned (49.9% response rate). Overall, 90.3% of community pharmacists agreed drug utilization review would be an important function of the Pharmacy Network; reducing prescribing problems was found to have the strongest support (91.3%). For eight measures of computerized physician order entry, agreement ranged from 69.6% to 97.2%, with removing problems with illegible hand writing receiving the strongest support. Although suspected adverse reactions appears to be under reported, 87.6% of community pharmacists indicated they would report more if it could be done electronically. Considerable support was found for four measures related to payment for pharmaceutical services (range 82.9% to 89.4%), with a higher proportion of female pharmacists indicating they would expect payment. Younger pharmacists, and/or those working in urban areas, had a higher perceived value of a pharmacy network than older pharmacists and/or those working in rural areas. Differences in perceived value of a pharmacy network was also found between education levels and years practicing and gender.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".