Utility and value of a medicines information service provided by pharmacists: a survey of health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: many health professionals lack the time and skills to search for and appraise information on medicines. A solution might be to use others skilled in evidence appraisal, who make recommendations or provide information tailored to patients' needs. The objectives of this study were to assess how advice provided to health professionals by the northwest of England regional medicines information centre is used, whether it is useful for patient care and to measure satisfaction with the service. METHODS: a questionnaire was designed and sent to health professionals who contacted the centre between September 2008 and March 2009. Enquirers contacting the centre more than once were sent a questionnaire only in response to their first enquiry during the study period. Non-responders were sent a reminder. KEY FINDINGS: questionnaires were sent to 672 enquirers; 68% were returned. Nearly all respondents used the advice provided. Of the 430 respondents who provided data on how they used the information, 81% used it to manage a current patient and 29% to plan the care of future patients; nearly all considered it useful. Where data were given (n = 366), half used it to check if current or proposed management was appropriate, 45% to make changes to therapy and 35% to advise another health professional. In addition to patient care, one-quarter (n = 105/430) of respondents used the information for continuing professional development and 16% (n = 69/430) for training or teaching. CONCLUSIONS: health professionals value the enquiry-answering service and use the advice provided for patient care, continuing professional development and educating patients and other health professionals. The service is responsive, supporting the care of patients needing immediate and future management.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".