Pharmacists’ experiences with the Bloom Program application process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Bloom Program, which began as a demonstration project, is an ongoing community pharmacy–based mental illness and addictions program funded by the government of Nova Scotia. To be eligible to offer the Bloom Program, interested pharmacists were required to complete a 9-part application on behalf of their pharmacies. A process evaluation was conducted to inform future program implementation changes of program components, including the application process. Methods: Qualitative interviews from 24 pharmacists were inductively analyzed to determine the challenges and opportunities in the program’s application process. Results: Key and impactful components of the application process included training, providing a mental health and addictions resource centre within the pharmacy and completing outreach activities with local mental health and addictions services and support organizations. The training content and format for the program was highly valued. Community outreach to local mental health and addictions resources, and other health care resources in the community, was particularly valuable in supporting patient navigation of the health care system and extending the pharmacists’ networks. Components of the application process were challenging for many pharmacists but were beneficial personally and professionally. Dedicated resources (e.g., time and staffing) are required for the efficient completion of the application process. Conclusion: Pharmacists viewed the Bloom Program application process as intensive yet necessary and relevant for preparing to deliver the Program. The demonstration project process evaluation was essential for elucidating the strengths of the application process and, importantly, identifying areas for improvement. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.
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 | 0.032 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".