A scoping review of research on Canadian team-based primary care pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: An ageing population with an increasing prevalence of chronic disease and complex medication regimens has placed a strain on healthcare systems in Canada. A limited number of team-based primary care pharmacists are integrated into primary care clinics across the country, working alongside other members of the health care team to identify and resolve drug therapy problems and improve outcomes. While many studies have been completed in the area, the extent of research on integrated team-based primary care pharmacists in Canada is unknown. The objectives of this work were to describe the literature that exists surrounding pharmacists in a primary health care team setting in Canada. A scoping review of research focusing on pharmacists in team-based primary health care settings in Canada was performed. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the identified studies. KEY FINDINGS: The search identified 874 articles, of which 93 met inclusion criteria relevant to the objective. From these 93 studies, 4 themes and 23 subthemes were identified, with some studies having more than one theme or subtheme. Themes identified were the following: primary care pharmacist scope of practice (n = 79 studies), collaboration/communication within the primary care setting (n = 26), chronic disease management (n = 24) and 'other' (n = 15). SUMMARY: This research quantified and categorized 93 studies on pharmacists in interprofessional primary care teams in Canada. As this is an expanding role for pharmacists in Canada, understanding the current state of the literature is an important consideration when developing future team-based primary care roles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".