Pharmacists’ Perceptions Regarding Optimization of Antibiotic Prescribing in the Community
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The overuse of antibiotics in the community is a primary cause of antibiotic resistance. Community pharmacists are the most accessible health professionals and so they are in an ideal position to implement interventions to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics. This study aimed to explore the role of community pharmacists in the optimization of antibiotic prescribing and utilization. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted with community pharmacists in Perth, Western Australia. Audio-recorded data were compared with field notes, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: There were twenty-four participants in four focus group sessions. Four main themes were identified: patient perceptions and behaviors, prescribing behaviors, pharmacists' roles and responsibilities, and health care system interventions in relation to antibiotic utilization. A number of interventions that could be implemented by community pharmacists were identified. In addition to interventions that are currently in place in Australia, forward dispensing, improved interprofessional collaboration, an expansion of current prescribing role, and vaccination capabilities were also suggested. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that current scope of pharmacists' roles has room for more intervention strategies aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing and utilization in the community.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it