Long-term trends in the labour supply and productivity of pharmacists in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The pharmacist labour supply affects patient access to pharmacotherapy, immunization, and other primary health care services. There is little published evidence on the pharmacist labour supply in Canada, yet these data are needed for pharmacist workforce planning. We evaluated long-term trends in the number of pharmacists in Canada, their average hours worked, and how demographic and other factors affect hours worked. We also examined trends in community pharmacist productivity. Methods: Data on the number of licensed pharmacists were obtained from pharmacist regulatory agencies. Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey identified pharmacists’ hours worked per week to be between 1987 and 2023. Regression models were used to estimate the impact of pharmacist demographic characteristics, worksite type, region of residence, and secular trends on hours worked. IQVIA data on community pharmacist prescription dispensing were used to examine productivity. Results: The number of pharmacists relative to population doubled over the past 4 decades. This growth was partly offset by reductions in average hours worked per week. This appears to be driven by increases in the female share of the pharmacist workforce and the declining number of hours that male pharmacists work. On net, however, the total number of weekly hours worked—the average weekly hours worked per pharmacist times the number of pharmacists—has increased in both absolute and per capita terms. This expansion in the pharmacist labour supply was reinforced by an increase in pharmacist productivity, at least in the community pharmacy sector. Interpretation: The pharmacist labour supply in Canada has expanded markedly over the past 4 decades; this has occurred despite a decline in the average weekly hours worked by male pharmacists. It is unclear, however, whether this increase is commensurate with the increased responsibilities and workloads being placed on pharmacists. Province-level data on the forecasted demand for pharmacist services and the pharmacist personnel needed to provide these services are required for pharmacist workforce planning. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2025;158:236–246.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".