MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do researchers use pharmacists' communication as an outcome measure? A scoping review of pharmacist involvement in diabetes care

2010· review· en· W2168341618 on OpenAlex
Patricia Babinec, Melanie Rock, Diane Lorenzetti, Jeffrey Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pharmacy Practice · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINEPharmacistPharmacyInclusion (mineral)Family medicineCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialNursingInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacy practice increasingly revolves around obtaining and interpreting information. We investigated whether and how pharmacy practice researchers design their studies in ways that acknowledge verbal communication between pharmacists and patients with diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of pharmacists' interventions with patients previously diagnosed as having diabetes with the aim of assessing how many used communication (quality and quantity) as an outcome measure. A scoping review identifies gaps in the literature and draws conclusions regarding the overall state of a research programme, but does not necessarily identify gaps in the quality of the studies reviewed. Quality assessment, therefore, was not conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched from 2003 to 2008 to identify relevant studies published in English. Reference lists of key studies were also scanned to identify additional studies. Randomized controlled trials and related studies of pharmacists verbal communication with diabetic patients were included. KEY FINDINGS: Some 413 abstracts were identified through database and reference searching. Of these, 65 studies met abstract inclusion criteria and 16 studies met full-text inclusion criteria necessary for this review. The majority of included studies report on patients' health outcomes, beliefs about drugs, self-reported health-related quality-of-life scales or some combination of these measures as indicators of pharmacists' interventions. Nine studies included information on the duration of the initial interaction between pharmacists and patients with diabetes; 13 reported on the number of follow-up contacts with pharmacists, and seven studies indicated that pharmacists participating in interventions had received training in diabetes management or in patient-centred care. No studies included or evaluated transcripts of pharmacist-patient interactions. SUMMARY: Results reveal a gap in the existing literature. In studies of diabetes, pharmacy practice researchers do not appear to consider the influence of pharmacists' communication skills on health outcomes. Future studies should be designed to incorporate a communication research component.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.567
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.056 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it