Evaluating pharmacists' experience using diabetes practice tools: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Practice tools, such as patienthandouts, pocket cards, and documentationforms, can help pharmacists initiate practicechange and improve routine care provided topatients. In this project, 5 practice tools weredesigned to help pharmacists improve theirusual care of patients with diabetes. Methods:A group of practising pharmacists wasinvited to use the practice tools and report ontheir feasibility. Participants met with theresearchers, were introduced to the practicetools, and were asked to field-test the tools. Theywere encouraged to use each tool at least 3 times,and were asked to complete a tool report formeach time they used a tool.Results: Eight pharmacists, primarily from com-munity practice, tested the diabetes tools. Par-ticipants completed each tool report form atleast once, for a total of 51 reports. Participantstook an average of 6 minutes to use the tools.The longest mean time required to use a toolwas 9 minutes, and the shortest was 4 minutes.Participants indicated that they would use thetools again. In 76% of tool uses, participantsfound the tools “easy” or “very easy” to use. Formost tool uses, participants indicated that thepatient was receptive (77%) and the tool fulfilledits purpose (73%). When asked to rate theiroverall experience with the practice tools, mostparticipants (71%) strongly agreed that thesetools would help them communicate with theirpatients and they liked the fact that they couldphotocopy them. Conclusion: A select group of pharmacists werewilling to test diabetes practice tools in theirworkplace, and several continued to use themin their practice during the following year.When practice tools fit with pharmacists’ cur-rent roles, they are more likely to be used. Itmay be particularly challenging to help phar-macists use tools that support innovative andunfamiliar practices. Further research is neededto determine the use of tools in other practicesettings, the impact of tools on the manner inwhich pharmacists deliver patient care, the levelof pharmacist support needed to facilitate toolimplementation, and the impact of tool use onpatients’ economic, clinical, and humanisticoutcomes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".