Pharmacists’ confidence when providing pharmaceutical care on anticoagulants, a multinational survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Guidelines on the management of orally anticoagulated patients are continuously evolving, leading to an increased need for pharmacists to be fully integrated in care provision. Objective To identify self-reported gaps in confidence among practicing pharmacists in the area of anticoagulation. Setting Pharmacists in different work settings in different countries. Method Cross-sectional international survey from October 2015 till November 2016 among pharmacists working in different settings to assess their level of confidence when delivering anticoagulants as well as to identify possible educational needs regarding this medication class. Validation of the survey was ensured. Results Responses from 4212 pharmacists originating from 18 countries were obtained. Pharmacists' level of confidence was significantly higher (p < 0.001) when advising patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) versus non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs). In general, hospital pharmacists displayed higher confidence levels compared to community pharmacists when advising patients on anticoagulation (p < 0.001). Two distinct patterns of confidence levels emerged relating to basic and advanced pharmaceutical care. Confidence levels when providing advanced pharmaceutical care were significantly higher for Oceania and lower for South America (p < 0.005). Conclusions Pharmacists felt more confident in supporting patients receiving VKAs compared to the more recently introduced NOACs. With the increasing use of NOACs and the risks pertaining to anticoagulation therapy, it is essential to invest in education for pharmacists to address their knowledge gaps enabling them to confidently support patients receiving oral anticoagulants.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".