Pharmacists’ Satisfaction with Work and Working Conditions in New Zealand—An Updated Survey and a Comparison to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As roles have evolved over time, changes in workplace environments have created higher patient expectations creating stressful conditions for pharmacists. Aim: To evaluate pharmacists’ perceptions of their working conditions, work dissatisfaction, and psychological distress; determine their predictors in New Zealand (NZ); and compare results with Canadian studies and historic NZ data. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to registered pharmacists in NZ. The survey included demographics, work satisfaction, psychological distress, and perceptions of their working conditions (six statements with agreement rated on a 5-point Likert scale). Comparisons were made with surveys from Canada and NZ. Chi-square, t-tests, and non-parametric statistics were used to make comparisons. Results: The response rate was 24.7% (694/2815) with 73.1% practicing in a community pharmacy (45.8% independent, 27.3% chains). Pharmacists disagreed on having adequate time for breaks and tasks, while the majority contemplated leaving the profession and/or not repeating their careers again if given the choice. Working longer hours and processing more prescriptions per day were predictive factors for poorer job satisfaction. More NZ pharmacists perceived their work environment to be conducive to safe and effective primary care (57% vs. 47%, p < 0.001) and reported that they had enough staff (45% vs. 32%, p = 0.002) as compared to Canadian pharmacists. Pharmacists’ job satisfaction and psychological distress have not improved compared to the assessment 20 years prior. Conclusions: NZ pharmacists perceive working conditions to be sub-optimal yet had higher satisfaction than their Canadian counterparts. Work dissatisfaction and psychological distress are high and have not improved over the last two decades.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".