MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834827420 · doi:10.1111/ijpp.12128

Evaluating pharmacist prescribing for minor ailments

2014· article· en· W1834827420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsMinistry of HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Health, Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistMinor (academic)Family medicinePharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Saskatchewan is the second Canadian province to allow pharmacists to prescribe medications for minor ailments and the only province that remunerates for this activity. The aim of this project was to determine whether patients prescribed such treatment by a pharmacist symptomatically improve within a set time frame. METHODS: Pharmacists were asked to hand a study-invitation card to anyone for whom they prescribed a medication for a minor ailment during the 1-year study period. Consenting participants contacted the study researchers directly and were subsequently instructed to complete an online questionnaire at the appropriate follow-up time. KEY FINDINGS: Ninety pharmacies in Saskatchewan participated, accruing 125 participants. Cold sores were the most common minor ailment (34.4%), followed by insect bites (20%) and seasonal allergies (19.2%). Trust in pharmacists and convenience were the most common reasons for choosing a pharmacist over a physician, and 27.2% would have chosen a physician or emergency department if the minor ailment service were not available. The condition significantly/completely improved in 80.8%; only 4% experienced bothersome side effects. Satisfaction with the pharmacist and service was strong; only 5.6% felt a physician would have been more thorough. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were very satisfied with their symptomatic improvement and with the service in general, albeit for a small number of conditions. Participants reported getting better, and side effects were not a concern. These results are encouraging for pharmacists; however, a comparison of physician care with pharmacist care and unsupported self-care is required to truly know the benefit of pharmacist prescribing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it