Assessment of Communication Barriers in Community Pharmacies
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".