Provision and Usage of Medical Services by Community Pharmacy: A Comparative Study of New York, Macao and Zhuhai (China)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community pharmacies around the world are redefining their roles by experimenting to provide medical services directly to consumers. The aim of this study was to investigate the medical services provided by community pharmacies and consumers’ usage of these medical services. This study was carried out through semi-structured interviews with both community pharmacists and their consumers in New York, Macao and Zhuhai. Community pharmacists reported information about provision of medical services, and consumers provided information about their usage of medical services at community pharmacies accordingly. Through analysis of interview materials it showed that community pharmacies mainly provided free medical examination, reference books and booklet of drug information. Some community pharmacies provided health care lecture and founded own website for medicine information. But touch-screen computer querying system and telephone health care service had not been provided. Additionally the consumers’ usage of medical services at community pharmacy is obviously lower than provision by community pharmacy. The provision level of medical services by community pharmacy was relatively low and the types of medical services were relatively narrow. There was an obvious gap between provision of medical services by community pharmacies and usage of such services by consumers. The position of community pharmacy in national health system and capability of community pharmacy have impact on the medical services of community pharmacies. Key words: Community pharmacy; Medical services; Comparative study; New York; Macao; Zhuhai (China)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".