Providing Patient Care in Community Pharmacies: Practice and Research in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the provision of patient care in community pharmacies in Finland. FINDINGS: The network of 799 community pharmacies across Finland dispensed 42.1 million prescriptions in 2005. Medication counseling has been mandated by law since 1983 and only pharmacists are permitted to provide therapeutic advice in pharmacies. Measurable improvements in the rates of pharmacists' medication counseling have been observed since 2000. Long-term national pharmacy practice initiatives commenced with the World Health Organization EuroPharm Forum's Questions to Ask About Your Medicines campaign from 1993 to 1996. This was followed by the larger Customized Information for the Benefit of Community Pharmacy Patients project. Since the late 1990s, Finnish pharmacies have actively participated in ongoing national public health programs, initially in the areas of asthma and diabetes, and more recently in the treatment and prevention of heart disease. Automated dose dispensing and electronic prescribing are in the process of wider uptake and implementation. A nationwide multidisciplinary project to improve the use of drugs in older people has recently been announced and research in this area is underway. DISCUSSION: Research has focused on improving the quality of patient care as a strategic priority in community pharmacies. The development of community pharmacy services in Finland has been characterized by strong collaboration among the professional associations, university departments of social pharmacy, continuing education centers, and practicing pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of new patient care services has required long-term, systematic, and well coordinated actions at the local and national levels. Future services will seek to promote the quality use of medications and to ensure that rising costs do not limit uniform access to drugs by all Finnish residents.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".