Financial remuneration is positively correlated with the number of clinical activities: an example from diabetes management in Alberta community pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of a compensation plan to remunerate pharmacists for clinical pharmacy services was associated with the number of diabetes management activities provided. METHODS: Alberta pharmacists were asked about compensation plan use and frequency they provide a list of 80 diabetes management activities. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 168 community pharmacists responded to the survey. When compensation plan use, diabetes-specific training, practice characteristics and additional authorizations were incorporated into a factorial ANOVA, pharmacists who used the compensation plan reported a mean of 42.9 (95% CI 39.4 to 46.4) diabetes management activities, while those who did not reported a mean of 29.9 (95% CI 21.4 to 38.4) activities (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: After considering other important influencing factors, use of the compensation plan is positively correlated with the number of diabetes management activities pharmacists provided.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".