Pharmacy Service Users' Support for and Willingness to Use Community Pharmacist Prescribing Services in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective(s): In 2012, pharmacists in Ontario were authorized to independently prescribe, including renew, and adapt prescriptions. This study described Ontario pharmacy service usersâ views, support for and willingness to use pharmacist prescribing services in the community. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with adults who had filled or refilled prescription(s) at a community pharmacy within the past three months were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants expressed that community pharmacist prescribing services had potential benefits, including being personally convenient. They also had some concerns, such as pharmacists potentially lacking access to clinical information (e.g. laboratory results and health records) that might be required to safely prescribe. Support for and willingness to use pharmacist prescribing services appeared to be contingent on perceptions of personal convenience, complexity of prescribing service, and cultural authority of pharmacists. Conclusion: Acceptance of pharmacist prescribing appears to be influenced by perceptions of benefits and risks. These findings could inform strategies to enhance public uptake of pharmacist prescribing services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".