[Knowledge of patients about OTC drugs as a result of pharmacist-patients consultations].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of patients about oral single-component OTC preparations containing ibuprofen, bought for their own use, was evaluated in relation to the manner of the process of communication between the pharmacist (laboratory assistant)--patient during the supply at the pharmacy. The answers of respondents were processed separately for the group of those who bought the preparation for the first time and those who had already used it for self-medication. The knowledge of contraindications and undesirable effects (judged separately) was found to be higher than 50% in both groups of respondents. Nevertheless, the patients who use the preparation repeatedly state simultaneous ignorance of undesirable effects and contraindications only in 32.2%, in contrast to the new users (60.0%). The patients who know neither contraindications nor undesirable effects of the preparation which they buy nevertheless think that they have enough information so that their self-medication can be safe (88.9% of patients using the preparation repeatedly and 80.0% of new users). Approximately a quarter of respondents in both groups under evaluation state that during the supply in the pharmacy they were not given any piece of information. Patients are passive when buying an OTC preparation and nearly 40% of them do not use the opportunity to ask for pertinent information themselves. Nearly 85% of respondents from both groups consider information gained from the pharmacy to be sufficient. When supplying an OTC preparation, in 45% of cases pharmacists (laboratory assistants) do not inquire whether the patient have already used the preparation, or whether he or she knows anything about it. The standard of counselling on self-medication in the Czech Republic should thus become more effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".