MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321371722 · doi:10.1177/171516350413700105

Using a Secret Shopper to Evaluate Pharmacist Provision of Emergency Contraception

2004· article· en· W2321371722 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marsha M. Cohen, Sheila Dunn, Rhonda Cockerill, Thomas E. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistEmergency contraceptionMedicineProtocol (science)PillPharmacyFamily medicineScripting languageMedical emergencyFamily planningNursingAlternative medicinePopulationComputer scienceResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Commonly known as “the morning-after pill,” hormonal emergency contraception or the emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) is most effective if used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. In this paper we review a pilot project in Toronto, Ontario, that aimed to increase accessibility by allowing pharmacists to dispense ECP through a pharmacist-physician collaborative agreement, using a predefined protocol. Participating pharmacists received training in the pilot protocol and about ECP. To evaluate whether participating pharmacists were following the project protocol (i.e., giving accurate information to women requesting ECP and dispensing ECP appropriately), and to determine the quality of the pharmacist-patient encounter, we sent “secret shoppers” to participating pharmacies. Method: Five trained “secret shoppers,” using one of two predefined scripts (Script One, where ECP was clearly appropriate, and Script Two, where ECP was not appropriate) visited 34 participating pharmacies to request ECP. At the end of the visit, the secret shopper filled in a questionnaire about the encounter and provided comments. Percentages were calculated for all variables. Results: For Script One encounters (n=17), most pharmacists followed the protocol correctly to dispense ECP. For Script Two encounters (n=17), 71.4% provided alternatives to ECP, but three pharmacists did not follow protocol and provided ECP. For Script One, 52.9% of pharmacists and for Script Two, 71.4%, provided a community referral for follow-up care. The majority of pharmacists (97%) treated the shopper with respect and 85% communicated clearly. Most of the shoppers' comments were positive and the main negative comment about the encounter was lack of privacy. Conclusions: The use of a secret shopper allowed the examination of the pharmacist-customer interaction to delineate issues of importance to the pilot project and provide feedback on areas that may require improvement in the pharmacy provision of emergency contraception, namely, dealing with women who do not qualify for ECP and providing women with community referrals for sexually transmitted infections or ongoing contraception.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207