6ER-031 Roles and impacts of the pharmacist from 1990 to the present: literature review and research perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are an increasing number of publications concerning the roles and impacts of pharmacists. Decision makers, clinicians and patients need evidence to support an appropriate allocation of funds to better use the expertise of pharmacists. Purpose To provide a profile of the roles and impacts of the pharmacist in the literature. Material and methods Review of literature. Articles in English and French related to the roles and the impacts of the pharmacist were selected, according a reproducible search strategy from 1990 to September 2017 in Pubmed and Pubmed Central. The following variables were extracted: author, country, study plan, pharmaceutical activities, patient care programmes, diseases, outcomes (e.g. mortality, morbidity, costs, adverse events, medication errors, compliance, satisfaction, other) and a quality score. Outcome results were categorised as positive, neutral or negative. Only descriptive statistics were performed. Results On 20 September, 2017, a total of 2323 articles were included on 100 themes (e.g. 41 pharmaceutical activities, 30 diseases and 29 patient care programmes). Studies were conducted in the United States (46.6%), multiple countries (8.2%), Canada (7.8%), France (6.2%), the United Kingdom (5.3%), Australia (3.6%) and other countries (19.3%). Studies were either cross-sectional (47%), retrospective (33%), prospective (18%) or uncategorised (12%). Outcomes included morbidity (22%), medication errors (11.7%), satisfaction (7.3%), adherence (6%), costs (5.6%), adverse reactions (3.7%), mortality (1.3%) and others (42.4%). Included studies reported 6784 descriptive indicators and 5108 outcome indicators (60% were positive, 39% neutral and 1% negative). The quality score of articles (n=1,697) were either excellent (8.8%), acceptable (34.2%) or with methodological limitations (57%). Conclusion This review of the literature confirms the extensive presence of pharmacists in numerous patient care programmes, treating different diseases and performing a variety of pharmaceutical activities. Most outcomes related to pharmaceutical activities were positive. However, a significant proportion of published studies had methodological limitations. Pharmacists need to be more exposed to evidence about their roles and their impact, both in community and hospital settings. Furthermore, increasing funding for evaluative research must be supported by external stakeholders in different countries to better understand the impact of pharmacists’ activities. 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 | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".