Do researchers use pharmacists' communication as an outcome measure? A scoping review of pharmacist involvement in diabetes care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.177 | 0.457 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".