MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131250401 · doi:10.1345/aph.1l154

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Drug Samples in a University Hospital Center: A Case Study

2008· article· en· W2131250401 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lyne Tardif, Benoît Bailey, Jean‐François Bussières, Denis Lebel, Geneviève Soucy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicinePharmacyPharmacistObservational studyLikert scaleHealth careClinical pharmacyDescriptive statisticsNursingMedical emergencyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The distribution of drug samples is both permitted and a common practice in Canada and the US. The impact of this strategy on healthcare workers' opinions and habits is a reason for concern. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceived advantages and disadvantages of using drug samples in a university hospital center. METHOD: An observational, descriptive case study was conducted in a 500-bed university hospital center between October 18 and November 1, 2007. To obtain feedback from the healthcare staff, our research team, which was made up of a physician, pharmacy resident, 2 pharmacists, and a student in health administration, designed a 26-question survey using a Likert scale (fully agree, partially agree, partially disagree, totally disagree, do not know). The questions focused on 8 different variables (rapid treatment initiation, free cost and availability, practicality of use, patient risk, pharmacist's role, impact on choice of treatment, storage and stock management, risk of pilfering). RESULTS: In total, 39 physicians, 18 medical residents, 17 medical clerks, 83 nurses, and 23 pharmacists working in various healthcare units and outpatient clinics (N = 180) agreed to take part in the survey and fill out the questionnaire. Generally speaking, there was a high degree of variation among the professional groups in their levels of agreement with the statements on the questionnaire. For example, 71% of the nurses, 43% of the physicians, 71% of the medical residents, and 36% of the medical clerks believed that drug samples encouraged treatment adherence, whereas only 17% of the pharmacists were of this opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the perceived advantages and risks of using drug samples vary by healthcare provider group and in terms of exposure or nonexposure to their use. Concerned professionals must be provided with this information and strict measures must be instituted to ensure patient security.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207