Community pharmacy services in the United Arab Emirates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the type and frequency of services provided through community pharmacies in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). METHODS: A survey was conducted using an anonymous questionnaire distributed by hand to 700 community pharmacies. Items included information about the pharmacists and pharmacies, type of products sold, type and extent of enhanced services provided and perceived barriers to providing these services. KEY FINDINGS: Most pharmacies provided a wide range of medicinal and non-medicinal products. The frequency with which services were provided was assessed on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). Enhanced professional services were not provided to a large extent in most pharmacies. Fewer than one-third (29%) reported they always supplied printed information to patients (mean = 3.37, 95% confidence interval = 3.23-3.52); fewer than one-third (28%) counselled patients on a regular basis (3.25, 3.09-3.40); nearly two-thirds (62%) reported monitoring patients' adherence to therapy at least sometimes (2.96, 2.81-3.10). Most pharmacies (92%) in the UAE did not routinely keep patient records (2.09, 1.96-2.32). While just over a quarter of respondents claimed that they always reported medication errors (27%) and adverse drug reactions (28%), these activities were not often performed in around 40% of pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the type and extent of professional services provided through community pharmacies in the UAE and provides baseline data critical to inform the development of strategies to improve the quality of community pharmacy services.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".