MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411729516 · doi:10.63209/2025.1534

Création d’un réseau de recherche sur la pratique des pharmaciens en néphrologie au Québec

2025· article· fr· W4411729516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandrine Gaudreau, Aylon Wisbaum, P Robert, Isabelle Cloutier, Jodianne Couture, Marie-France Beauchesne

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmactuel · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux Cavendish
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectif : Déterminer l’intérêt des pharmaciens en néphrologie à participer à un réseau de recherche québécois entre collègues, ainsi que les barrières pouvant limiter leur participation. Méthode : Étude mixte dans laquelle un sondage électronique a d’abord été envoyé aux membres du Regroupement de pharmaciens experts en néphrologie de l’Association des pharmaciens en établissements de santé du Québec. Ensuite, des entretiens téléphoniques semi-structurés ont été réalisés auprès de pharmaciennes travaillant dans des cliniques de prédialyse au Québec. Résultats : Des 17 répondants au sondage, 71 % ont déclaré que la création d’un réseau de recherche québécois sur la pratique des pharmaciens en néphrologie est très pertinente. Soixante-dix-sept pour cent d’entre eux se disent prêts ou très prêts à collaborer à la création d’un tel réseau. Les principaux obstacles à leur participation sont le manque de temps, le manque d’expérience et le manque de financement, tandis que le choix et la réalisation des analyses statistiques constituent des facteurs limitants. Les principales stratégies pour susciter une plus grande participation sont l’allocation d’heures à la recherche, ainsi que l’accès à des programmes de mentorat et à des occasions de collaboration dans le cadre de recherches existantes. Conclusion : Cette étude nous indique qu’il serait intéressant de créer un réseau de recherche regroupant des pharmaciens exerçant en néphrologie au Québec, car ces derniers souhaitent participer à des projets de recherche communs, particulièrement si des occasions leur sont graduellement offertes de manière à surmonter les obstacles rencontrés. Abstract Objective: To determine the interest of pharmacists working in nephrology in participating in a Quebec research network with colleagues as well as the barriers that may limit their participation. Method: A mixed study in which an e-survey was first sent to members of the Association des pharmaciens en établissements de santé du Québec’s Regroupement de pharmaciens experts en néphrologie. Semi-structured telephone interviews were then conducted with pharmacists working in predialysis clinics in Quebec. Results: Of the 17 respondents to the survey, 71% stated that the creation of a Quebec research network on pharmacists practice in nephrology is very relevant. Seventy-seven percent of them said they were prepared or very prepared to collaborate in the creation of such a network. Lack of time, experience, and funding were identified as the main obstacles to their participation, while determining and conducting statistical analyses were limiting factors. The main strategies for greater participation were the allocation of hours dedicated to research as well as access to mentoring programs and opportunities to collaborate on existing research. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that it would be worthwhile to create a research network bringing together pharmacists working in nephrology in Quebec as they demonstrated an interest in participating in joint research projects, particularly if such opportunities are gradually offered to them to allow them to overcome any obstacles encountered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.422
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmactuelSame topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207