“It Made a Difference to Me”: A Comparative Case Study of Community Pharmacists’ Care Planning Services in Primary Health Care
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
In some jurisdictions, governments and the public look to community pharmacies to provide expanded primary health care services, including care plans with follow-up. Care planning services, covered by the Compensation Plan in Alberta, Canada, require pharmacists to assess an eligible patient's health history, medication history, and drug-related problems to establish goals of treatment, interventions, and monitoring plan. Follow-up assessments are also covered by the Compensation Plan. A comparative case study method facilitated an in-depth investigation of care planning services provided by four community pharmacy sites. Data from 77 interviews, 61 site-specific documents, and 94 h of observation collected over 20 months were analyzed using an iterative constant comparative approach. Using a sociomaterial theoretical framework, the perceived value of care planning services was examined through an investigation of the relationships and interactions between people and information. Patients perceived the value of care planning as related to waiting time to access care and co-creating individualized plans. Physicians and other health care professionals valued collaboration, information sharing, and different perspectives on patient care. Pharmacists valued collaboration with patients and other health care professionals, which renewed their sense of responsibility, increased satisfaction, and gave meaning to their role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it