Pharmaceutical services and health promotion: how far have we gone and how are we faring? Scientific output in pharmaceutical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the scientific output on health promotion within the pharmaceutical field and its relation with the development of pharmaceutical services within health systems. A comprehensive review of published scientific articles from the Medline and Lilacs databases was carried out. The review comprised articles published until December 2011, and used combinations of the terms 'health promotion' or 'health education' and 'pharmacy', 'pharmacist' or 'pharmaceutical'. The articles were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 170 full texts and 87 indexed abstracts were analyzed, evidencing that most described actions of health promotion in community pharmacies and other services. Following the Ottawa Charter, most of the studies dealt with new guidance of the service and the supply of pharmaceutical information and services. It was concluded that there is a lack of theoretical background on health promotion in the pharmaceutical field to sustain the professional education and practice required by the health system and the population.
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 | 0.077 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".