A survey of Alberta pharmacists’ attitudes, comfort and perceived barriers to a community-based naloxone program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community pharmacists play an important role in the wellness of patients, families and friends affected by prescription and illicit opioid drugs. They are key partners of the Community Based Naloxone (CBN) Program in Alberta and similar programs across other Canadian jurisdictions. This publicly funded program is an evidence-based response to the opioid overdose crisis, facilitating access to and distribution of naloxone kits through pharmacies. The study aimed to describe Alberta community pharmacists’ practices, training, comfort levels and views in dispensing naloxone kits through the CBN program and detail potential perceived barriers to program participation. Methods: The study was conducted as a cross-sectional online survey of Alberta pharmacists. Data collected from the survey were descriptive and evaluated using Microsoft Excel. Fisher exact tests were used to study the associations in responses among several demographic characteristics and related to dispensing practices, pharmacists’ beliefs and perceived barriers. Results: A total of 255 responses were included in the final analysis, with 89.8% of pharmacists replying “yes” to CBN program participation. Pharmacists on average were “comfortable” dispensing naloxone to patients for varying indications, with 85% reporting always providing education when dispensing naloxone to an individual for the first time. About 41% of pharmacists reported no barriers to the program, with the most common perceived barriers being lack of time (29%), demand (20%) and funding (19%). Conclusion: Most community pharmacists who responded to the survey participate in the CBN program in Alberta. They held positive beliefs about their role in screening patients for the risk of opioid overdose and are confident in their abilities to recommend and educate on naloxone kits. Proactive screening appeared lower, however, and dispensing kits were potentially variable. Addressing factors such as time, funding for services and demand may help further pharmacist uptake and success of the program. 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".