Public Education Campaigns to Transform Perceptions of Pharmacists: Are They Worth the Investment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent public opinion polls consistently rank pharmacists as highly trusted health care professionals, but the reasoning for this ranking continues to remain vague and inconclusive. One possible explanation for this high ranking is that it is due in part to the limited expectations the public has of the profession. To gather comparative "before" and "after" data for this study, a self-administered, 33-item paper questionnaire was disseminated to 382 postsecondary (undergraduate) business students in a classroom setting. The questionnaire was designed to assess respondents' baseline perceptions toward (1) the pharmacy profession, in general, and (2) a prerecorded video of a simulated patient-pharmacist counseling session. Most respondents initially reported a "Poor/Fair" understanding of pharmacist education and training (52.1%), what to expect when having a prescription dispensed (55.5%), the content of a counseling session (49.7%), and pharmacist scope of practice (55.5%). After viewing the educational video, the number of respondents who reported a "Poor/Fair" understanding dropped to less than 5%; the majority of respondents reported a "Very Good/Excellent" understanding of pharmacist education and training (63.1%), what to expect when having a prescription dispensed (56.0%), the content of a counseling session (66.4%), and pharmacist scope of practice (60.5%). Results of this study demonstrated that using a public education-type video to increase public awareness for the pharmacy profession and pharmacist counseling duties significantly impacted respondents' knowledge and perception of value toward the profession and of pharmacist counseling.
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 | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".