Perceptions of Independent Pharmacist Prescribing among Health Authority- and Community-Based Pharmacists in Northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacists across Canada have varying degrees of ability to prescribe medications depending on their jurisdiction of licensure. The purpose of this study was to the evaluate attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of independent pharmacist prescribing among health authority- and community-based pharmacists. This prospective, cross-sectional online survey assessed the perceptions of independent pharmacist prescribing of health authority and community pharmacists practising in northern British Columbia (BC), which was defined as within the geographical boundaries of Northern Health. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and a regression analysis. There were 45 respondents to the survey: 22 community pharmacists and 23 health authority pharmacists. Both community and health authority pharmacists held positive perceptions of independent pharmacist prescribing and did not identify any barriers to incorporating independent pharmacist prescribing into their practice. Respondents were highly likely to apply for independent pharmacist prescribing authority, if available. Pharmacists in BC are currently not able to independently prescribe schedule I medications. The provincial regulatory body has proposed a framework for a Certified Pharmacist Prescriber designation, which if approved would allow pharmacists to prescribe in collaborative practice settings. This study provides some insight into the perception of pharmacists in northern BC in pursuing this designation, which may be valuable for planning purposes in case of adoption of the framework. These results are also likely applicable to other non-urban practice settings in Canada. Pharmacists in northern BC perceived independent pharmacist prescribing positively and a high proportion were likely to apply for this authority if it were permitted via legislation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".