Factors Influencing a Community Pharmacist's Interventions in Asthma Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about current pharmacists' interventions related to drug counselling and monitoring in asthma, along with the barriers and facilitators to these, in the province of Quebec. Objectives: To identify and explore organizational, relational and professional factors that influence community pharmacists' interventions in asthma care and propose solutions to overcome the barriers to these interventions. Methods: In 2006, a survey and an invitation to participate in a focus group were sent to community pharmacists in Quebec. Three focus groups were held to discuss the results of the survey about community pharmacists' interventions in asthma and the factors influencing these interventions, along with solutions to identified barriers. Each focus group lasted for approximately 120 minutes and was moderated by 2 investigators. Results: Seventeen community pharmacists participated in the study. One focus group was held with pharmacy owners, 1 with salaried pharmacists who graduated before 1990 and 1 with salaried pharmacists who graduated after 1996. Owners and salaried pharmacists of different years of graduation generally made the same comments. Most pharmacists reported intervening with asthma patients, especially when initial prescriptions were filled. Lack of time and unclear definition of tasks were reported as barriers. Solutions were proposed to resolve barriers, such as clearly defining tasks and ensuring quick access to support materials for patient education and drug monitoring. Conclusion: Community pharmacists report intervening in asthma care mostly when patients fill their initial prescription. Several barriers to follow-up interventions were identified.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".