Impact of a Continuing Education Program on Community Pharmacists' Interventions and Asthma Medication Use: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: By upgrading the pharmacists' knowledge and skill set through continuing education (CE) programs, they could be better suited to contribute to the enhancement of the management of asthma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an asthma CE program provided to community pharmacists on their knowledge, intervention frequency, and the appropriateness of asthma medication use. METHODS: Community pharmacists were invited to participate in a CE program on asthma. Those who displayed an interest in the program were assigned to either a control or experimental group. Participants in the first group were not offered the CE program until the study was completed; the second group participated in the CE program at the onset of the study period. The knowledge on asthma of both groups of pharmacists was assessed using a questionnaire before the CE program, and the knowledge of the experimental group was reassessed after the CE program. Pharmacists were asked to document their interventions in the study log book over 6 months following the CE program. The appropriateness of asthma medication use was estimated by reviewing the prescription claims for a subgroup of patients covered by Québec's Public Prescription Drug Insurance Plan. RESULTS: Pharmacists' knowledge improved after the CE program; however, the number of interventions reported during the 6 month period following the program was low and did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of 3.04 per pharmacy in the experimental group versus 3.26 in the control group. The appropriateness of asthma medication use did not improve once the CE program had been completed. CONCLUSIONS: Our CE program had little impact on the number of interventions by community pharmacists and the appropriateness of asthma medication use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".