Recommendations for Meeting the Pediatric Patient's Need for a Clinical Pharmacist: A Joint Opinion of the Pediatrics Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and the Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children warrant access to care from clinical pharmacists trained in pediatrics. The American College of Clinical Pharmacy Pediatrics Practice and Research Network (ACCP Pediatrics PRN) released an opinion paper in 2005 with recommendations for improving the quality and quantity of pediatric pharmacy education in colleges of pharmacy, residency programs, and fellowships. While progress has been made in increasing the availability of pediatric residencies, there is still much to be done to meet the direct care needs of pediatric patients. The purpose of this Joint Opinion paper is to outline strategies and recommendations for expanding the quality and capacity of pediatric clinical pharmacy practitioners by 1) elevating the minimum expectations for pharmacists entering practice to provide pediatric care; 2) standardizing pediatric pharmacy education; 3) expanding the current number of pediatric clinical pharmacists; and 4) creating an infrastructure for development of pediatric clinical pharmacists and clinical scientists. These recommendations may be used to provide both a conceptual framework and action items for schools of pharmacy, health care systems, and policymakers to work together to increase the quality and quantity of pediatric training, practice, or research initiatives.
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 | 0.033 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".