Factors Affecting Pharmacist’s Performance Based on Motivation Theory: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine factors that affect the performance of pharmacist based on motivation theory. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted to explore that affect factors an employee's performance, especially a pharmacist. Electronic databases used to identify relevant studies to the affecting factors such performance were Science Direct, PUBMED, UGM Library (Dissertation) and Google Scholar. The search terms used are “pharmacist performance”, “performance-affecting factors for pharmacist”, “pharmacist performance optimization”, and “performance motivation”. This study was limited to English and Indonesian language only and publication years from 2000 to 2016. Electronic search database found 50 articles while only six studies meet the eligibility criteria to serve as the basis for determining the performance of the pharmacist. RESULTS: Pharmacist performance was influenced by five factors: organization and environment, social order, resources owned, pharmacist characteristics, and regulation. These five variables are considered by the Alderfer ERG theory of Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. CONCLUSION: Performance for pharmacists should be emphasized with systemic supports for pharmaceutical practice changes to succeed on a wide scale and devote to producing a good performance.
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.
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 | 0.037 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it