GM-025 Evidence about the roles and impact of pharmacists: an action plan of interventions to increase pharmacist awareness about these evidences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pharmacy practice is challenged by governments and authorities regarding the costs of pharmaceutical services and available public funding. There is a growing body of evidences on the roles and impact of pharmacists. There are a limited number of pharmacists that are aware of the evidence. Purpose To describe an action plan of interventions that should increase pharmacists’ awareness about evidence on the roles and impact of pharmacists. Material and methods This was a descriptive study. A literature search was conducted on Pubmed with the following terms: interventions, professional behaviour and evaluation. Only systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to change healthcare professional behaviour were included. Based on the literature and using a mind mapping technique, we developed a map of the characteristics of interventions that can change professional behaviours. Using the map, we discussed and identified the potential interventions that could be implemented to increase pharmacists’ awareness about evidence on the roles and impact of pharmacists. The action plan was discussed between research team members and interventions were selected by consensus. Results A total of 15 interventions were identified. The interventions were meant to target different audiences (eg, regulatory authority, professional associations, pharmacists, physicians, nurses, pharmacy students, healthcare decision makers, general public). Intervention characteristics were identified, including face to face or at distance, oral or written, at school, at work, at home or in public areas, performed once or repeated many times, with or without feedback. To increase pharmacists’ awareness, we identified 20 key messages based on Impact Pharmacie platform. Interventions included in the action plan were: dedicated courses and short internship within the pharmacy curriculum, specific conferences at key events, booths, quiz at professional meetings, surveys/audits for targeted groups, educational outreach in retail and hospital pharmacies using key documents, pyramidal dissemination through ambassadors, weekly blogs and social medias, formal support from different professional organisations, research projects with published abstracts and articles, videos, etc. Based on the literature review, multifaceted interventions should be prioritised whenever possible. Conclusion This study described the 15 interventions of an action plan that should increase pharmacists’ awareness about evidence on the roles and impact of pharmacists. No conflict of interest
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 | 0.050 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".