Evaluating the patient-perceived impact of clinical pharmacy services and proactive follow-up care in an ambulatory chemotherapy unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the patient-perceived impact of delivery of clinical pharmacy services, including a proactive follow-up program, on patient understanding, satisfaction, and toxicity management. Methods Patients who had received clinical pharmacy services at their initial chemotherapy treatment were identified and asked to complete a 20-point survey at the second or subsequent treatment. The services that the survey evaluated consist of face-to-face education during the first treatment and proactive telephone follow-up 3 to 7 days later. Results A total of 107 of the 112 respondents (95.5%) indicated that the time with the pharmacist at the first treatment was worthwhile and 92.6% of respondents reported that the interaction with the pharmacist increased their understanding of the medication regimen. Of the 113 respondents, the majority was either "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied" with the time the pharmacist spent with them (94.7%), and the pharmacist's ability to answer their questions (92.9%). In addition, survey results indicate that the clinical pharmacy input provided in the pharmacist call-back program is valuable, with 92.6% of the 82 respondents indicating that this service is worthwhile, and 91.4% of 93 respondents stating that the pharmacist input helped them to manage side-effects at home. Conclusions Survey results indicate that patients value clinical pharmacy services in the ambulatory oncology chemotherapy setting. These services contribute to improve patient understanding of the medication regimen, a high level of patient satisfaction, and self-management of treatment-related toxicities. These results support the provision of clinical pharmacy services and proactive follow-up programs in ambulatory chemotherapy units.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".