Assessment of Communication Barriers in Community Pharmacies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified previously reported facilitators and barriers to pharmacist-client communication and then evaluated their impact on the observed communication behaviors of pharmacists. Pharmacists (n = 100) completed a seven-page questionnaire collecting information on 11 variables that had been organized according to the Policy, Regulatory and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Ecological Development (PROCEDE) model as predisposing, enabling, or reinforcing of pharmacist communication with their clients. Demographic variables also were included. "Communication quality" served as the study's dependent variable, whereas pharmacist responses served as the independent variables. Communication quality scores for each pharmacist were obtained from the analysis of 765 audiorecordings of verbal exchanges occurring between the study pharmacists and their consenting clients during 4-hour, on-site observation periods. Four of the variables examined in the study were found to share a unique relationship with communication quality (pharmacists' attitude, year of graduation, adherence expectations, and outcome expectations). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that the variables measured in the questionnaire accounted for 23% of the variance in communication quality scores. Plausible explanations for why the study was unable to capture more of the variance in its proposed relationships and future areas for research are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it