Community Pharmacist Services for People With Mental Illnesses: Preferences, Satisfaction, and Stigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine patient preferences, satisfaction, and perceived stigma related to community pharmacists. METHODS: A total of 79 persons receiving psychotropic medications from community pharmacies were recruited at mental health outpatient clinics in Canada to complete a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Traditional pharmacy services (providing medication information) were perceived to be of greater importance than some clinical services (such as medication and dosing recommendations). However, perceived importance of service was strongly correlated with its availability. Several gaps in service were identified, including advice on stopping medications, collaborating with other health providers, describing how medications work, addressing side effects, and discussing issues during prescription refills. Inquiries by pharmacists about chronic disease risk factors were uncommon. Perceived stigma was similar to stigma with other types of health providers and lower than that reported with other community members. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived value of community pharmacy services appears to be based on their availability. Participants identified some discomfort and stigma associated with community pharmacy services, but experiences were positive overall.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".