Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to determine consumer attitudes towards community pharmacy and their preferences for the introduction of new services. Methods A self-completion questionnaire was developed and 1,144 consumers in 55 community pharmacies were invited to complete it. The questionnaire covered consumers' choice of pharmacy; their perceptions of, and actual interactions with, community pharmacists; advice from pharmacists about general health and prescribed medicines; and privacy in the pharmacy. Respondents were asked for their views about five possible new services. Setting The study was based in community pharmacies in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. Key findings The response rate was 79.6%. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents often or sometimes visited a particular pharmacy. One-quarter of respondents perceived community pharmacists as having a good balance between health and business matters, while 56.1% thought pharmacists were more concerned with the business. The majority of respondents (69.7%) said they felt comfortable asking the pharmacist for advice. Just under half (44.8%) felt that pharmacists allowed them enough time to discuss their problem fully and listened well. In addition, 58.5% of respondents indicated that their pharmacists showed sensitivity to privacy by speaking more quietly across the counter. In 14.4% of situations pharmacists were reported to use a private area within the pharmacy when discussing personal or private matters. Most respondents (65.2%) indicated that their pharmacist was willing to discuss their health problems and tried to understand their feelings. Consumers' priorities for new services were: monitoring blood pressure; measuring weight, height and temperature; monitoring blood sugar; and monitoring cholesterol. Conclusion This study showed that most pharmacy customers feel comfortable seeking advice from their pharmacist. Although many pharmacists were reported to show sensitivity to a possible lack of privacy in the pharmacy, few respondents reported that their pharmacy had a private area for discussion. Customers' views on possible new services were generally positive, with the exception of patient medication records.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".