MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220941006 · doi:10.1177/87551225211052411

Awareness, Familiarity, and Pharmacist Trust: A Structural Equation Model Analysis

2022· article· en· W4220941006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bobbi Morrison, Todd A. Boyle, Thomas Mahaffey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistPharmacyStructural equation modelingHealth carePsychologyInterpersonal communicationNursingFamily medicineMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Trust in health care professionals is critical in the health care system and is needed for a patient to seek care, reveal sensitive information, and follow a specified treatment plan, among other things. Objective: To better understand trust in community pharmacists, this research develops a model of how patient awareness of the different community pharmacy roles (role awareness) and pharmacist familiarity influences pharmacist trust. Methods: A survey of pharmacy patients in Nova Scotia, Canada, occurred in November and December 2019, with quota sampling used to achieve representativeness by age, gender, and household income. A total of 640 usable surveys were obtained. Consistent partial least squares was deployed to test and refine the model. Results: Overall, the final model highlights that both role awareness and pharmacist familiarity influence patient assessments of pharmacist trust and explains 38.7% of its variance. Pharmacist familiarity has a stronger influence than role awareness on pharmacist trust. Results of the consistent partial least squares multigroup analysis found no statistically significant differences in the model based on patient gender. Conclusion: This research provides a means to capture interpersonal trust in community pharmacists and identifies 2 key determinants of such trust. This research also provides guidance on how to assess pharmacist trust, the value of patients knowing their pharmacist, and the value of patient awareness of the roles of the various professionals behind the counter. Such knowledge will help pharmacy managers, associations, and regulatory authorities develop evidence-informed plans to assess, rebuild, and sustain 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy TechnologySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207