Understanding the Context of Pharmacy Practice Change: Gaining insight into the professional culture of pharmacy and pharmacists’ personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pharmacists around the world are being asked to adopt, and integrate, an increasing number of clinical services into their practices. Evidence for the efficacy of pharmacists’ interventions in patient care also continues to grow. Traditional approaches to understanding practice change have not fully accounted for the environmental context of pharmacy practice. Aim: The aim of this work was to begin this process of understanding the context of pharmacy practice by gaining insight into the professional culture of pharmacy within Canada. Objectives: Objective 1: To gain insight into Canadian pharmacy’s professional culture, using the organizational culture profile (OCP), and personality traits, using the big five inventory (BFI). Objective 2: Investigate possible relationships between pharmacists’ responses to the OCP and BFI and proxy measures of advanced practice. Objective 3: Using demographic data including pharmacy practice setting, pharmacist role, level of education and region of practice to investigate possible sub-group differences in responses provided on the OCP and BFI. Methods: A cross-sectional survey design was used in each of the 5 studies included in this work. Participants included Alberta hospital pharmacists (Chapter 2), pharmacists with Additional Prescribing Authority participating in a pharmacy practice research trial (Chapter 3), a national sample of hospital pharmacists (Chapter 4), Alberta pharmacists with Additional Prescribing Authority (Chapter 5), and British Columbia pharmacists (Chapter 6). With the exception of the second study (Chapter 3) all surveys were administered online. A variety of measures, in addition to the OCP and BFI, were collected some examples of included measures include: number of years in practice, level of education, number of patients recruited into a pharmacy practice trial, region of practice, integration of Additional prescribing Authority into practice, and number of prescription adaptations provided each month. The results from each study were first analysed using descriptive statistics, and then using ANOVA analyses, with post-hoc testing, or regression analyses, as appropriate. Conclusions: One OCP factor, competitiveness was consistently repeated across the studies. Results from the BFI also identified one trait, conscientiousness, repeated across each of the 5 studies. A number of significant relationships were observed between the adoption of advanced practice opportunities and the factors of the OCP and the traits of the BFI. Finally, a number of important possible sub-group differences were also identified. Taken together these findings provide insight into the context of pharmacy practice. This improved understanding of context can be used in the development of future knowledge translation intervention studies to advance pharmacists’ practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".