Activities and perceptions of pharmacists providing tobacco control services in community pharmacy in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community pharmacists' involvement in tobacco control and their perceived role and barriers were assessed. In part I, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 164 community pharmacists who applied for community pharmacy accreditation from the Thai Pharmacy Council in 2003. In part II, an in-depth interview was conducted among 13 community pharmacists who participated in the 1-day smoking cessation services training. Main outcome measures were tobacco control-related activities, perceived tobacco control role, and perceived barriers. The questionnaire response rate was 51% (83/164 pharmacists), with half of the respondents (42/83, 51%) reporting active tobacco control activities. Of these pharmacists, seven (7/42, 17%) reported participating in public or policy advocacy by campaigning against smoking in the community. Thirty-four (34/42, 81%) and thirty-six (36/42, 86%) reported engaging in activities in their own pharmacies by providing educational materials and smoking cessation services, respectively. Even though the perceived roles in tobacco control of these pharmacists were high, they also reported several barriers, especially in five categories: lack of client demand, lack of educational materials, lack of smoking cessation products, lack of knowledge and skill, and lack of follow-up visits. On the other hand, lack of time and lack of reimbursement were not indicated as important barriers. Data from in-depth interviews confirmed these findings. This study revealed that Thai community pharmacists were engaged in various levels of tobacco control-related activities. Most of them perceived the significance of tobacco control activities. However, several barriers were also reported and need to be addressed further.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".