Practical strategies and perceptions from community pharmacists following their experiences with conducting pharmacy practice research: a qualitative content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While prior research identified barriers to conducting research in community pharmacies, there remains a need to better understand facilitators to ensure successful collaborations between academic researchers and pharmacists. Our objective was to determine the experiences and perspectives of community pharmacists who have recently conducted a pharmacy practice-based research study to gain in-depth understanding of challenges as well as facilitators and identify strategies and solutions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews with community pharmacists following the completion of a practice-based research study in their pharmacies. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis involving open coding, creating categories and abstraction into final themes. KEY FINDINGS: Eleven pharmacists participated in the qualitative interviews. We identified six major themes including: (1) barriers (e.g. time constraints); (2) facilitators (e.g. ideal pharmacy layout); (3) support and resources from academic researchers (e.g. helpfulness of training, easy-to-use study materials); (4) pharmacist-initiated strategies for conducting research (beyond prior suggestions from researchers); (5) suggestions for future pharmacy practice research; and (6) motivation for conducting pharmacy practice research. These findings informed practical strategies targeted at academic researchers and pharmacists, respectively, to facilitate the conduct of research in community pharmacists across various stages of the research process. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to better understanding of community pharmacists' perspectives on conducting research and identifies practical solutions that can be readily implemented by academic researchers and pharmacists participating in research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".