Understanding the experiences of Black Nova Scotians with community pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A history of medical abuse and social inequality confounded by persistent racial discrimination in health care has triggered mistrust between Black patients and health care providers. Although the consequences of systemic racism on health outcomes are well understood, little is known about how they manifest in pharmacy practice. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of Black Nova Scotians with community pharmacists. Methods: This was a qualitative study that used focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Black Nova Scotians 18 years of age and older who have had interactions with community pharmacists were invited to participate. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. Results: = 10) and 6 one-on-one interviews were held between May and June 2021. Three major themes were identified: 1) difficulties navigating a pharmacy as a Black person, 2) lack of inclusivity and cultural competence in the pharmacy and 3) transactional relationships with pharmacists. Discussion: Most participants felt their race negatively affected the quality of care they received from the pharmacist and that pharmacists were not culturally competent. Most participants did not consider pharmacists to be part of their health care team and described feeling unsafe or uncomfortable in the pharmacy. Conclusions: Pharmacists have an important role in closing the health equity gap. This research highlights the need for pharmacy education to include cultural competence and will be used to guide strategies to improve access to culturally safe pharmacy services for Black Nova Scotians.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".