How pharmacists perceive their professional identity: a scoping review and discursive analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review were to (a) explore how pharmacists perceive their professional roles and identities and (b) describe factors impacting which professional roles or identities pharmacists embody in different pharmacy practice settings. METHODS: A scoping review using a deductive approach was undertaken for this study. Systematic searches were conducted in five databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and Scopus (Elsevier). Key words searched included pharmacist, identity, professional role and one variations of these. Results were double-blind screened for relevance by two authors. Data extraction was facilitated by the web-based software platform COVIDENCE. Foucauldian critical discourse analysis was used to deconstruct how pharmacists perceive their professional roles and identities. KEY FINDINGS: In total, 21 701 articles were retrieved in the search. Following de-duplication and screening, 23 studies from 11 different countries were included. Five major identity themes were identified: Clinician, Dispenser, Business Person, Patient Counsellor and Physician Supporter. The dispenser identity was the most widespread, but it was viewed by many pharmacists as undesirable. The clinician identity also had a strong presence but was viewed as an identity that pharmacists aspire to embody. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review illustrates that pharmacists do not uniformly perceive themselves to be clinicians. A significant gap exists between the profession's desired identity and that embodied by practicing pharmacists. The resulting dissonance may be a contributing factor to the lack of wide-scale practice change that the profession has been seeking for decades.
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 | 0.073 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".