Bridging the Location Gap: How Can Pharmacists and Physicians Collaborate for Delivering Patient Care? (BRIDGE Study Phase I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research has shown that collaboration between physicians and pharmacists improves health outcomes and prevents adverse drug events. Pharmacists providing medication therapy management (MTM) services in local stand-alone MTM clinics have experienced significant difficulty collaborating with physicians. However, MTM pharmacists who practice in the same facility with the physician self-rate their practices as highly collaborative. The purpose of this study is to determine if collaboration varies based on MTM practice location.Methods: A convenience sample of 15 physicians who had received documentation of patient care from both an internal and external MTM pharmacist was surveyed to assess pharmacist-physician collaboration. Each physician was asked to complete the same survey for both an internal and an external MTM pharmacist, and to provide background and demographic information.Results: Eleven surveys were returned by physicians for a 73% response rate (11/15). Four surveys were completed in their entirety. Seven surveys were returned with only the internal MTM pharmacist portion completed. The total score for external MTM pharmacists ranged from 52 to 87 with a mean score of 73.25 and standard deviation (SD) of 15.28. The total score for internal MTM pharmacists ranged from 74 to 98 with a mean score of 87.90 and SD of 9.12. Total mean scores resulting from summing items for the three domains of trustworthiness, role specification, and relationship initiation were higher for internal MTM pharmacists versus external MTM pharmacists (p = .03).Conclusion: Based on our results, it appears the level of collaboration between physicians and MTM pharmacists tends to be higher when they practice in the same facility.
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 | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".