Exploring pharmacists’ attitude, willingness and barriers to provide extended community pharmacy services: Implications for improved pharmacy services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pharmacists' attitude and willingness to provide extended community pharmacy services (ECPS), the barriers to ECPS, and the factors associated with attitude and willingness to implement ECPS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a validated, self-administered questionnaire was distributed online to community pharmacists across the United Arab Emirates between September and November 2023. In addition to sociodemographic data, the questionnaire evaluated attitudes toward ECPS, willingness to provide ECPS, and barriers to its implementation. Binary logistic regression was conducted to explore the factors associated with attitude and willingness to implement ECPS. RESULTS: The study included 409 pharmacists. Over half of the participants reported below the median attitude (58.7%) and willingness (59.4%) scores. Female pharmacists had a lower attitude towards ECPS (OR = 0.425, 95%CI: 0.242-0.747). Higher number of daily prescriptions (OR = 1.066, 95%CI: 1.029-1.105) and being a Pharm D graduate (OR = 2.664, 95%CI: 1.439-4.932) were associated with higher willingness to provide ECPS, while an increased number of employed pharmacists (OR = 0.518, 95%CI: 0.397-0.676) was associated with a lower willingness (OR = 0.049, 95%CI: 0.004-0.660). Patients' preoccupation (76.5%), lack of specific training (76.3%), lack of clinical problem-solving skills (74.6%) and lack of a private consultation room (74.6%) were the most commonly reported barriers to ECPS. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists demonstrated unsatisfactory levels of attitude and willingness towards ECPS provision. Therefore, providing training and education programs that enhance pharmacists' perception and willingness to implement ECPS and emphasize improving clinical problem-solving skills, as well as setting up specific private consultation rooms, is deemed necessary. Female pharmacy graduates, pharmacists dispensing fewer daily prescriptions, and those working with a higher number of employed pharmacists should be specifically targeted when implementing these strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".