Descriptive analysis of pharmacy services provided after community pharmacy screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Community pharmacies are promising locations for opportunistic screening due to pharmacist accessibility and ability to perform various health and medication management services. Little is known as to the provision of pharmacy services following screening initiatives. Objective To describe provision of pharmacy services for participants following a community pharmacy stroke screening initiative. Setting The Program for the Identification of "Actionable Atrial" Fibrillation Pharmacy initiative took place in 30 pharmacies in Alberta and Ontario, Canada. 1149 participants ≥ 65 were screened for atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. Method Retrospective, secondary analysis of data using participant case-report forms, pharmacy data, and pharmacy claims to describe pharmacy services received by participants post-screening. Main Outcome Measure Number and types of remunerated pharmacy services received by participants post-screening. Results A total of 535/1149 (46.6%) participants screened at their regular pharmacy were included in this analysis. Of these, 165 (30.8%) participants received 229 pharmacy services within 3 months post-screening, including 146 medication reviews, 57 influenza vaccinations, and 21 pharmaceutical opinions. A median (interquartile range, IQR) of 6 (2-11) pharmacy services were delivered, and median (IQR) reimbursement was $187.50 ($67.50-$342.50). Conclusions Approximately one-third of participants received a pharmacy service within 3 months post-screening. Relatively large numbers of annual and follow-up medication reviews were delivered despite low eligibility for annual-only reviews and despite many missed opportunities for pharmacy service provision in at-risk patients. In-pharmacy screening may facilitate provision of some services, namely medication reviews, by providing opportunities to identify patients at-risk.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".