OA53 “dementia friendly pharmacies” a community based health promotion project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inspired by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, which is a major point of reference also for the "Compassionate Communities", we would like to propose that communities consolidate various settings like schools, workplaces, and health care organisations like community pharmacies, all of which might be included in a compassionate communities approach. AIM: We aim at enabling community pharmacies to offer informal consulting and support for people with dementia and their informal caregivers. Furthermore we want to support pharmacies to reach out in the community through various activities. By this means the project seeks to contribute to de-stigmatising dementia. METHOD: The project is based on the approach "Participatory Health Research" (Hockley, Froggatt, Heimerl 2013; Wright et al . 2010). The core elements of the approach are participation, action and reflection. Approximately 40 staff (almost exclusively women) in 18 community pharmacies actively participates in the project, i.e. needs assessment, interactive workshops, practice projects and evaluation. People with dementia and their informal care givers are included in the needs assessment and in different steps of the programme. RESULTS: Community pharmacy staff raised several issues, closely related to communication, counselling and providing advice in a community pharmacy setting: They believe further development of professional practice to be important, since dementia care will become a more prominent issue for the community pharmacy. Moreover, a high frequency of contact with people living with dementia and their caregivers was reported by the majority of staff. Professional competencies related to dementia care are a key issue, and community pharmacy personnel viewed their practice with a critical eye: Communicating with disoriented persons poses some challenges, as does communicating with caregivers. CONCLUSION: In the still ongoing project the raised issues are being dealt with in practice projects that are performed by the pharmacies with the support of the project staff. Several projects reach out to the community through self-help groups, cinema performances, public presentations and discussions. Informal care givers have engaged in direct contact with the included pharmacies and become part of selected practice projects. People with dementia have been included in the needs assessment and the design of the project logo.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".