Results of a National Survey on Over-The-Counter Medicines, Part 1: Pharmacist Opinion on Current Scheduling Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: > BACKGROUND: OTC medicines make up an important part of the community pharmacy world. As with most aspects of practice, however, hurdles exist that prevent an optimal level of care. OBJECTIVE: To gauge pharmacist agreement on the scheduling status of various OTC medicines. METHODS: Pharmacists across Canada were surveyed by mail. RESULTS: Of the 5037 surveys mailed, 2403 were returned, with 2305 being usable for analysis (response rate of 49.4%). Across 25 agents, pharmacists tended to support existing control for pharmacies (such as Nix crème rinse and minoxidil topical solution) and returning control to pharmacies for unscheduled agents (such as ranitidine 75 mg tablets and nicotine patches). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists generally favour tighter control of OTC agents, especially those that are unscheduled. This hopefully reflects pharmacist desire to ensure their proper selection and use.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".