Impact of the Dial Access Drug Information Service on Patient Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a drug information service on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of patient-specific drug information requests. SETTING: Healthcare professional and consumer drug information service located at a college of pharmacy. PARTICIPANTS: Consumers and healthcare professionals of the province. INTERVENTION: Patient-specific questions received by the drug information service were reviewed and evaluated for actual patient outcome, inquirers' opinion of impact of the service with respect to patient outcome, and for objectivity and timeliness of the response. An expert panel determined whether the responses and recommendations given by the service were appropriate, determined what impact the service had on the patient, and assessed the seriousness of the inquiry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Classification of patient outcome by objective and subjective data based on predetermined desired outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight and 68 patient-specific requests were received from healthcare professionals and consumers, respectively. The panel concluded that 94.9% of the healthcare requests and 98.5% of the consumer requests were answered appropriately and that the majority of the requests involved potentially serious drug-related problems. The panel also determined that 46.8% of the recommendations to healthcare professionals and 41.0% of the recommendations to consumers resulted in positive patient outcomes. The majority of the positive outcomes involved the prevention of a disease or its symptoms (professional section) and the reduction or elimination of symptoms (consumer section). CONCLUSIONS: The drug information service not only met its objectives of providing drug information in an accurate, objective, and timely manner, but was also able to provide positive patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".