What elements of the patient–pharmacist relationship are associated with patient satisfaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal medication management requires an effective relationship between the patient and health care professional. As pharmacists move from the traditional dispensing role to become more actively involved in patient care, factors influencing their relationship with patients need to be identified. A better understanding of these factors will facilitate more effective relationships. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of patient-perceived pharmacist expertise on relationship quality, self-efficacy, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in five community pharmacies within the province of Alberta, Canada. A total of 500 patients were asked to complete a set of validated, self-administered questionnaires that measured perceived pharmacist expertise, relationship quality, self-efficacy, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine the associations between variables. RESULTS: A total of 112 surveys were returned. Internal consistency ranged from 0.86-0.92, suggesting good reliability, except for the relationship commitment scale. There was a significant, positive correlation between patient-perceived pharmacist expertise and quality of the relationship (0.78; P < 0.001). There were also significant, positive correlations between perceived expertise and patient satisfaction (0.52; P < 0.001) and relationship commitment (0.47; P < 0.001). These associations remained significant but the magnitude of correlation decreased when relationship quality was taken into account (0.55; P < 0.001 and 0.56; P < 0.001, respectively). On the other hand, there was no significant association between either patient-perceived pharmacist expertise or relationship quality and medication self-efficacy (0.06; P = 0.517 and 0.10; P = 0.292, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patient-perceived pharmacist expertise is an independent determinant of relationship quality, patient satisfaction, and relationship commitment. Relationship quality also appears to mediate the effect of perceived expertise on patient satisfaction and relationship commitment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".