Class of 2014 Abstract / Specific Aims: On April 18, 2007, the Arizona legislature passed the Pharmacy Continuous Quality Assurance (CQA) law, with enforced compliance beginning January 1, 2014. With the lengthy lag time between passage of the law and required compliance with the law, a continuing pharmacy education (CPE) seminar was developed to educate Arizona pharmacy personnel about the new requirements. The CPE seminar was evaluated by assessing changes in participant self-reported knowledge, motivation, and awareness regarding the quality assurance legislation and the CQA process. Methods: The CPE seminar took place at the Arizona Pharmacy Association’s Community Pharmacy Academy Conference. Data were collected using a retrospective pre-assessment/post-assessment questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests with a Boniferroni correction. Demographic information were reported using descriptive statistics. Main Results: The response rate was 70%, with 28 of 40 participants completing the questionnaire. Each of the six self-assessment questionnaire statements showed a statistically significant change from pre to post assessment (p = 0.0005). Conclusion: The results show that the law CPE session positively impacted participant self-assessment of knowledge, awareness, and motivation of quality improvement initiatives and medication errors. Follow-up research is needed to determine what impact this CPE session will have in pharmacy practice.

The number of unanswered questions on Community based Question Answering (CQA) websites has increased significantly due to the rising number of duplicate questions. This is a serious problem, one that could lead to the decline of such beneficial websites. This thesis presents novel avenues that use gaze tracking technology and behavioral testing to tackle this problem. Based on prior studies on web search behaviors, we assumed that adding contextual information (snippets) to proposed related questions displayed on the `Ask a Question' page of the CQA website iFixit would improve the asker experience and reduce their tendency to post a new duplicate question. The first lab experiment where this web page was redesigned and compared to the original one was conducted on 8 participants. Results confirmed that participants were more likely to find an answer to their question on the redesigned page. A second experiment, conducted remotely and on a larger sample of 74 participants, aimed to discover strategic attributes that increase the perceived similarity of question pairs. These attributes were used in the third lab experiment (20 participants) to redesign and assess the snippets from Experiment 1. Results indicated that snippets containing `symptom(s)' and `cause(s)' attributes constitute an incremental improvement over basic snippets: they are perceived as slightly more relevant and require significantly less gaze fixations on the asker's part.

Yes / This research aims to identify users who are posting as well as encouraging others to post low-quality and duplicate contents on community question answering sites. The good guys called Caretakers and the bad guys called Reputation Collectors are characterised by their behaviour, answering pattern and reputation points. The proposed system is developed and analysed over publicly available Stack Exchange data dump. A graph based methodology is employed to derive the characteristic of Reputation Collectors and Caretakers. Results reveal that Reputation Collectors are primary sources of low-quality answers as well as answers to duplicate questions posted on the site. The Caretakers answer limited questions of challenging nature and fetches maximum reputation against those questions whereas Reputation Collectors answers have so many low-quality and duplicate questions to gain the reputation point. We have developed algorithms to identify the Caretakers and Reputation Collectors of the site. Our analysis finds that 1.05% of Reputation Collectors post 18.88% of low quality answers. This study extends previous research by identifying the Reputation Collectors and 2 how they collect their reputation points.

No description available.