MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114754658 · doi:10.1345/aph.1l308

Community Pharmacists’ Interventions in Asthma Care: A Descriptive Study

2008· article· en· W2114754658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nola René-Henri, Yvonne Khamla, Natalie Nadaira, Catherine Ouellet, Lucie Blais, Lyne Lalonde, Johanne Collin, Marie-France Beauchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de LavalUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionFacilitatorAsthmaMedical prescriptionFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Descriptive statisticsNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Factors influencing community pharmacists' interventions have been identified, but little information is available regarding these factors in asthma care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the type and frequency of pharmacists' asthma care interventions and to identify factors influencing those interventions. METHODS: A pretested, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all community pharmacists registered with the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec in 2006. The form included questions about the pharmacists' interventions in asthma care in the community setting (21 questions), factors influencing the provision of those interventions (13 questions), and the responders' characteristics (17 questions). RESULTS: A total of 4587 questionnaires were sent; 917 pharmacists returned the questionnaires (response rate 20%), and 877 were eligible for analysis. Overall, community pharmacists who completed the questionnaire appeared to intervene frequently when the initial prescription for asthma medication was filled. About 98% of responders reported providing verbal information always or often on new asthma medication prescriptions. Furthermore, checking for overuse of rescue medication and underuse of maintenance therapy always or often was reported by 91% and 85.8% of responders, respectively. Other interventions at follow-up were not as frequently reported. For example, only 8.4% of pharmacists reported reassessing inhalation technique always or often. Lack of time was reported to be an important barrier to the type and frequency of intervention, while interest on the part of the patient appeared to be a significant facilitator. About 99% of pharmacists agreed with the statement that they have an important role in asthma care. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists appear to intervene with patients with asthma mostly at the initiation of treatment, but some interventions at follow-up are not frequently done, which could be attributed to organizational factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.239
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207