Evaluation of a decision aid and a personal risk profile in community pharmacy for patients considering options to improve cardiovascular health: the OPTIONS pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective In a pilot study, to assess the feasibility and relevance of providing a community pharmacist consultation supplemented by a decision aid (DA) or a personal risk profile (PRP) to patients on lipid-lowering or antihypertensive pharmacotherapy. Preliminary data on the clinical effectiveness of these interventions were collected. Method Patients were randomised to DA or PRP and evaluated before, two weeks after, and three months after a pharmacist consultation. No differences were observed between DA and PRP groups; results are reported for all patients combined. The quality of the patients' decision to initiate or maintain lifestyle change and/or pharmacological treatment was evaluated at baseline and two weeks after the consultation by measuring their knowledge, risk perception, decisional conflict and satisfaction with the decision process. The stage of change for various lifestyles and changes in cardiovascular disease (CVD)-risk factors were evaluated at baseline and at three months. Setting Ten community pharmacies. Key findings Twenty-six of 42 patients (62%) agreed to participate. Patients reported as excellent or very good the way the information was presented (79%), the amount of information (88%), and the usefulness of the tools (100%). The quality of the patients' decision at baseline was low; one-third of participants correctly estimated their CVD risks and laboratory results, and 54% had high decisional conflict. After the intervention, the satisfaction scores for role in decision making, amount of information provided and pharmacist's attitude were 69%, 81% and 85% respectively, and the proportion of participants with high decisional conflict declined to 25% (P = 0.02). CVD knowledge and risk perception did not change after the intervention. Improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL)-C, total-C/high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-C ratio, body mass index, and estimated 10-year CVD risk were observed. Conclusion Providing pharmacist consultation supplemented by a DA or a PRP in community pharmacies is feasible and relevant. However, it did not improve CVD knowledge or risk perception.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".