A report on pharmacists with the NCMP credential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the demographics and practices of pharmacists with The North American Menopause Society Certified Menopause Practitioner (NCMP) credential. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was disseminated to pharmacists with the NCMP credential in June 2018. Twenty-four items were posed to respondents regarding demographics, educational background, and employment, in addition to perspectives regarding the utility of the credential in practice. The questions consisted of multiple choice, as well as open-ended responses. RESULTS: Of the 40 pharmacists who were invited to participate, 26 (65%) responded. The majority of respondents were women (84%), practicing for at least 10 years (range 5-47 y), based in Canada (70%), and practicing in the community (43%) or compounding (39%) pharmacies. Most pharmacists reported pursuing the credential for credibility with patients (81%), to increase their knowledge about menopause (77%), and for credibility with other healthcare providers (73%). Almost all (88%) plan to renew their credential. Among these pharmacists, many are presently counseling about treatment options (78%) and educating about selected treatment (78%). Pharmacists are most interested in initiating systemic hormonal therapy (61%) and modifying or continuing systemic hormonal therapy (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists find the NCMP credential to be valuable. Although pharmacists are engaged in counseling and recommendations, they desire prescriptive authority related to menopause care. Future studies should explore the various pharmacist care models and evaluate the impact of pharmacist care on organizational operations and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".