Pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes regarding their role in depression management: Insights into opportunities for improved practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate community pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, practices, and obstacles concerning depression management, as well as the factors linked to their attitudes and practices. This cross-sectional study surveyed 407 community pharmacists using convenience sampling. Participants completed a validated questionnaire administered in person by a research pharmacist. A quantile regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with pharmacists' attitudes and practices regarding depression management. The pharmacists reported insufficient knowledge but exhibited a favourable attitude and a high level of practice in depression management. Nevertheless, several barriers were reported. Factors associated with higher attitude scores included working in chain community pharmacies, having less than 1 year, or 1-10 years of, and a higher knowledge score. Higher attitude scores were associated with improved practice levels, with those having 1-10 years of experience also reported frequent practice behaviours. Lack of training and insufficient knowledge represented the most frequent barriers to providing effective depression management. Although pharmacists exhibited favourable attitudes and effective practices regarding depression management, they identified a need for improved knowledge, did not feel they could effectively assist patients with depression, and reported various barriers to providing these services in community pharmacies. Future efforts should focus on integrating specialized mental health training into pharmacy curricula. Additionally, educational programs and workshops addressing these barriers could enhance pharmacists' knowledge, confidence, and proactive involvement in depression management.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".