Are Pharmacists Ready for a Greater Role in Travel Health? An Evaluation of the Knowledge and Confidence in Providing Travel Health Advice of Pharmacists Practicing in a Community Pharmacy Chain in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients often consult community pharmacists for medication needs related to travel, but little is known of pharmacists' knowledge and readiness to provide this care. The aim of this study was to evaluate pharmacists' knowledge in travel health, and to assess their confidence in providing travel-related advice to patients. METHODS: A web-based survey was developed and distributed to 84 pharmacists practicing in a mid-size pharmacy chain in Alberta, Canada. The survey included knowledge and confidence assessment components. To assess knowledge, pharmacists were provided two cases, along with multiple-choice questions examining pre-travel risk assessment, and advice on travel at altitude, vaccines, malaria, travelers' diarrhea, and other potential travel health risks. Confidence was assessed by asking respondents to report their level of confidence in answering each knowledge assessment question and providing travel advice overall, using a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were also asked to indicate preferred means for receiving additional training in travel health. RESULTS: A total of 53 pharmacists responded to the survey, with a response rate of 63%. Most (61%) indicated that they had some level of training in travel health and 69% counseled on travel health more than once a month. Only one respondent correctly answered all six questions in the knowledge assessment section. The mean knowledge score (proportion of correct answers, unaided) for the group was 27%. However, the majority (66%) felt confident that they would know where to seek the information required to answer the questions. Overall confidence in this group of pharmacists was determined to be low, with only 21% of respondents reporting that they felt highly confident in providing travel health advice. CONCLUSIONS: Travel health is becoming an increasingly common topic of discussion between patients and pharmacists. This study suggests that pharmacists' baseline knowledge of travel health may be incomplete, affecting their confidence in providing this advice. Undergraduate and continuing education training programs must expand travel health curricula to meet this growing need.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".