Views of British community pharmacists on direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To survey British community pharmacists' views and practices concerning direct patient reporting of ADRs. METHODS: Cross-sectional postal survey of community pharmacists in Britain RESULTS: Of 1096 questionnaires distributed, 297 usable responses were obtained, (27.1%). Respondents' estimates of the frequency of patients reporting a suspected ADR to them had a median of 1.0 per month. Almost a fifth of respondents (19.6%) do not specifically ask patients about ADRs, and 38.7% do not encourage patients to report. Only 18.5% displayed a poster promoting the YC Scheme in their pharmacy, but 57.9% claimed to have patient YCs available. A quarter (24.9%) of respondents considered that ADR reporting should be restricted to health professionals and 14.4% considered that patients were not at all capable of identifying ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate and overall results suggest that British community pharmacists may lack interest in and do not promote direct patient reporting. Increased awareness of the benefits and mechanisms of patient reporting may be required to ensure that pharmacists can provide the necessary support to facilitate patient reporting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".