Community pharmacy services for antidepressant users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate the communication and barriers to communication between community-based pharmacists and antidepressant users. Method A survey package designed to evaluate the communication between pharmacists and antidepressant users was distributed to 50 community pharmacies. Each package included one pharmacist survey and 10 sealed antidepressant user surveys to be distributed by the pharmacy staff. The survey addressed the components of communication, level of satisfaction and barriers to effective communication. Setting Urban and rural community pharmacies in the Canadian Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Key findings Overall, pharmacists rated the value of their communication more highly than did antidepressant users, although the difference was not statistically significant. When beginning treatment, between one-half and two-thirds of antidepressant users recalled pharmacists inquiring about past use of the antidepressant and discussing information provided by the physician, time to onset of benefits and potential side effects. The purpose of the antidepressant, target symptoms, usual duration of therapy and risk of relapse with premature discontinuation were addressed less often according to antidepressant users, and monitoring of compliance was not a common activity. Antidepressant users estimated that initial communication with the pharmacist generally lasted less than five minutes, and often less than two minutes. However, pharmacists appeared to resolve misconceptions and concerns about antidepressant use efficiently. According to pharmacists, the major barrier to effective communication was a lack of privacy. Conclusion Although compliance with antidepressants is low and treatment outcomes are sub-optimal, pharmacists are not using their opportunities to minimise this problem through effective communication and follow-up. Pharmacists, pharmacy administrators and regulators need to re-assess their contribution to this problem and how they can lead to its resolution in the patient's best interest.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".