Evaluation of a Community Pharmacy–Based Screening Questionnaire to Identify Patients at Risk for Drug Therapy Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if a short screening questionnaire can identify patients at risk for drug therapy problems (DTPs) in a community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Three community pharmacies in Saskatoon, Canada. PATIENTS: Forty-nine adults who were picking up a refill prescription for a medication that had remained stable over the past 6 months (i.e., no changes to drug, dose, or regimen) during 4 consecutive weeks at each of the three pharmacies between November 2013 and February 2014. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients completed a self-administered screening questionnaire and underwent a blinded comprehensive medication assessment with a clinical pharmacist. Agreement between the screening questionnaire responses and responses based on information from the medication assessment were assessed with Cohen's κ coefficient. The DTPs identified during the medication assessments were categorized in one of the eight standard DTP categories: unnecessary drug therapy, inappropriate drug, subtherapeutic dose, supratherapeutic dose, drug therapy required, adverse drug reaction, noncompliance, and other or unsure. The DTPs were also assigned a severity-mild, moderate, or severe-using adapted Schneider criteria. The number and severity of DTPs identified were compared among patients categorized as high versus low risk for DTPs as determined by the questionnaire responses. Of the 49 patients who completed the study, 18 (37%) were high risk and 31 (63%) low risk. The agreement between risk categorization based on the screening questionnaire and medication assessment was very good (κ = 0.91, p<0.01). Also, patients identified as high risk on the screening questionnaire had a mean of 3.7 (p<0.01) more DTPs than low-risk patients. Seventeen (94%) of the 18 high-risk patients had at least one moderate or severe DTP compared with 15 (48%) of the 31 low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: The screening questionnaire was a reliable method for identifying patients in community pharmacies who have a large number of DTPs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".