Media Generation and Pharmacy Regulatory Authority Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Professional regulatory authorities play a critical role in protecting public interest. Yet, there is a growing view that trust in regulatory authorities may be on the decline. Objective: Awareness has been identified as important for maintaining trust. However, research that examines public awareness and trust in pharmacy regulatory authorities (PRAs) is lacking. This research explores public awareness and trust of PRAs and presents recommendations to enhance PRA communication strategies. Methods: An online survey was conducted with the Nova Scotia (Canada) public in 2020. Adopting classifications from the Communications literature, 3 media generations were explored: newspaper, television, and the Internet. The χ 2 test of independence and Kruskal-Wallis H test were adopted to explore differences between the generations. Results: Six hundred sixty-two usable surveys were obtained. Over 80% of those surveyed were aware of the existence of the PRA. Those who had heard of the PRA were most aware of its operational responsibilities and less aware of its governance. The Internet Generation was more aware that the PRA includes members of the public in its decision making than expected and showed increased trust toward the PRA versus the other media generations. Conclusion: The findings should help inform PRA communication plans and set baselines to assess whether such plans enhance awareness. Future studies should explore additional aspects of PRA awareness and trust, perform comparisons across pharmacy jurisdictions, and develop and test models of the relationship between PRA awareness and various dimensions of institutional trust.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".