Immunization services offered in Québec (Canada) pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Pharmacists are easy to reach. Although Québec pharmacists are not allowed to administer vaccines, they can: (1) promote vaccination, (2) counsel patients on vaccination, (3) sell vaccines and (4) provide vaccine administration by a nurse. Our objectives were to describe immunization services given in Québec pharmacies and assess the potential relation between, on one hand, pharmacy characteristics and difficulties perceived by pharmacists and, on the other hand, vaccine administration. In 2008-09, an anonymous questionnaire was mailed to all Québec pharmacy owners (n = 1663). Among the 1102 (66%) respondents, 90% stated that vaccines were sold, 27% that a nurse administered vaccines in their pharmacy and 44% were planning to offer vaccine administration in the next five years. Three out of four stated they were doing vaccine promotion and 65%, vaccine counselling. Half of respondents said they would be willing to administer vaccines themselves if legislative modifications were made. Recommendations for cold chain maintenance were followed in 23% of pharmacies selling vaccines. Presence of another health professional in the pharmacy, higher number of opening hours, not being located in the same building than a medical clinic and having an agreement to collaborate with a public health unit or a medical clinic for immunization were positively associated with vaccine administration in multivariate analysis. Higher perceived difficulties with lack of demand from patients were negatively associated with vaccine administration. Most pharmacists are willing to increase their involvement in immunization. Collaboration between public health professionals and pharmacists should be reinforced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".