Patient perspectives on the role of community pharmacists for antidepressant treatment: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients prescribed antidepressant drug treatment (ADT) for major depression report several needs in relation to their treatment, and a large proportion of these patients will end ADT prematurely. Community pharmacists may play an important role in monitoring ADT and supporting these patients. However, little is known about patient experiences of the services provided in community pharmacies. The objectives of this study were to 1) explore patients' experiences with the services community pharmacists provide for ADT and 2) identify potential avenues for improvement of pharmacists' services within the context of ADT. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive exploratory study was conducted among individuals diagnosed with major depression who had initiated ADT at some point in the 12 months prior to their participation in the study. A total of 14 persons recruited in a local health centre and a community-based organization participated in individual interviews. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: Pharmacists tend to concentrate their involvement in treatment at initiation and at the first refill when questions, uncertainties and side effects are major issues. Patients felt that the pharmacists' contributions consisted of providing information and reassurance; in these respects, their needs were met. Participants had few ideas as to what additional services pharmacists could implement to improve patients' experience with ADT. Patients' sole expectations were that pharmacists extend this information role to the whole length of the treatment and enhance the confidentiality of discussions in pharmacy. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists should provide counselling throughout the entire treatment rather than passively waiting for patients to ask their questions. However, facilitation of open discussions may not be achieved unless confidentiality at pharmacies is secured.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".