MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2051848266 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v67i1.1314

Do Our Pharmacy Standards Promote Integrated Care?

2014· article· en· W2051848266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Bond, Yvonne Hopf

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careHealth careNursingEmpowermentWorkforcePromotion (chess)PharmacyMedical prescriptionService (business)BusinessMedicinePublic relationsMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

H ealth care should be clinically effective, cost-effective and safe.Worldwide, reforms are in progress to cope with the rising costs of health care resulting from demographic changes and medical advances.Two approaches are commonly adopted to address these challenges: utilizing the skills of the wider health care workforce and transferring the balance of care from secondary to primary care settings.At the same time, it is accepted that patients should be partners in decision-making about their care, which leads to patient empowerment and better health outcomes.These service reforms have been challenged because of concerns over safety, and continuity of care may have suffered.Patients complain of having to repeatedly tell an increasing number of different professionals the same details of their medical (and social) situations.A relatively recent concept designed to address some of these concerns is integrated care, defined by the World Health Organization as "a concept bringing together inputs, delivery, management and organisations of service related to diagnosis, treatment, care, rehabilitation and health promotion.Integration is a means to improve services in relation to access, quality, user satisfaction and efficiency." 1 Integrated care is not a single entity but a multidimensional philosophy of care, including vertical integration across settings and horizontal integration within teams.Those with the most complex health care needs are most likely to benefit from integrated care.Data from the United Kingdom show that 4 out of 5 people 75 years of age or older take a prescription medicine, and 36% are taking 4 or more. 2 Adverse events associated with medicines are increasingly common because of drug interactions from polypharmacy regimens, unnoticed contraindications to prescribed medicines due to comorbidities, and the physiological changes associated with aging.All health care professionals need to be aware of the changing balance of risks and benefits of medicine use in patients with complex needs, and pharmacists, as experts in medicines, are best placed to advise on safe and effective medicine management.Pharmacists know how integral their profession is to ensuring safe, clinically effective, and cost-effective medicine 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0110.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→