The Role of the Pharmacist Caring for People Living with HIV/AIDS: A Canadian Position Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree of complexity involved in caring for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has increased dramatically since 1996. The Canadian Collaborative HIV/AIDS Pharmacy Network was developed to bring together pharmacists with a clinical and research focus in HIV/AIDS to optimize patient outcomes and to promote the profession of pharmacy through communication, education, research, and clinical practice. The purpose of this Canadian position paper is to provide pharmacists with guidelines for the role that a pharmacist may have in caring for HIV/AIDS patients. The Network identified several areas in which pharmacists need guidelines for practice: adherence with therapy, patient counselling, management of drug interactions and adverse reactions, medication acquisition and payment, drug information, research, complementary and alternative therapy, pediatric issues, and the needs of special populations. Each of these areas is covered in this position paper. Pharmacists caring for HIV/AIDS patients in the hospital, the community, and other ambulatory settings have an important opportunity to positively affect patient outcome. This position paper is based on currently available information, and as new information becomes available, our role in the care of these patients must also evolve.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".