Pharmacists’ lack of profession-hood: Professional identity formation and its implications for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the internalized, psychological sense of being a professional may provide important insight into understanding pharmacists' behaviours and attitudes in practice. METHODS: It is difficult to directly or quantitatively measure an internalized psychological state such as profession-hood. An indirect method was selected in which pharmacists who were themselves patients or caregivers were identified and invited to discuss their experiences, as a vehicle for better understanding how they relied upon personal and professional identities during high-stress, impactful times. RESULTS: A total of 17 community pharmacists from southern Ontario participated in this study. Regardless of demographic background, participants reported little reliance on professional identity, knowledge or role as a pharmacist when advocating for themselves or a loved one. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that community pharmacists have incomplete, separated or functional (rather than existential) professional identities. This lack of professional identity may influence behaviours in practice such as interactions with other health care professionals or patients or self-confidence in clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to better understand the socialization and professional identity formation of pharmacists to help support them through the current evolution of pharmacy towards more interdependent and complex clinical roles and decision-making.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".