Evaluation of community pharmacist ability to ensure the safe use of oral anticancer agents: a nationwide survey in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A recent study of community pharmacists in Canada reported that they required additional education. We conducted a survey of community pharmacists to evaluate the adequacy of education and training in oral anticancer agents in Japan. METHODS: Between May and June 2014, community pharmacists were asked to complete a questionnaire by using two different survey strategies, one online and one via postal mail. RESULTS: Three hundred community pharmacists responded to an online survey and 283 community pharmacists responded to a mailed survey. Only 6-10% of respondents felt that they had received adequate education in oncology or oral chemotherapy. Although 81% of Japanese pharmacists had attended at least one continuing education event related to oncology in the past 2 years, only 54% felt comfortable dispensing oral anticancer agents and only 40% felt comfortable educating patients about oral chemotherapy. In a multivariate analysis, confidence in educating patients about oral chemotherapy was associated with an understanding of chemotherapy cycles and doses (odds ratio = 4.89, 95% confidence interval [2.53-9.45]) and the number of continuing education events they had attended (odds ratio = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [1.35-2.08]). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report to evaluate whether community pharmacists are equipped to ensure the safe use of oral anticancer agents in Japan. The results are similar to those previously reported for Canadian pharmacists, namely a low rate of positive responses for education in oncology and oral chemotherapy, demonstrating a similar need for additional education and training in oral chemotherapy.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".