Community-Based Pharmacists’ Perspectives on Prescribing Authority for the Minor Ailments and Contraceptive Service in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Recent changes to legislation in British Columbia (BC) have expanded the scope of pharmacist-provided services to include pharmacist prescribing for minor ailments and contraception (PPMAC). The purpose of this study was to gather community-based pharmacists’ perspectives on these changes to practice. Methods This was a cross-sectional online survey study. The study population was pharmacists practicing in community settings in BC. A 28-question survey was developed to capture the uptake of prescribing in the pharmacists’ practices, their views on PPMAC, educational supports, and workplace-specific questions. Invitations to participate were disseminated by using fax, social media platform posts, and email. Results A total of 246 participants completed all or part of the survey. A majority felt they should be able to assess and prescribe for minor ailments and contraception, and were satisfied with the regulatory changes. Pharmacists had varying degrees of comfort with prescribing for specific patient populations, with the highest for patients >75 years of age and lowest for patients with renal disease. Respondents felt that patients who were without a primary care provider or did not have easy access to walk-in clinics would benefit the most from PPMAC. Pharmacists expressed concerns about their workplace’s level of support for their providing these new services to patients. Discussion Most pharmacist respondents were supportive of and have begun prescribing for minor ailments and contraception in their practices. While they identified many perceived benefits to patient care, workplace barriers may hinder full provision of pharmacist prescribing in their practice.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".