MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910493247

Drug samples in family medicine teaching units: a cross-sectional descriptive study: Part 3: availability and use of drug samples in Quebec.

2018· article· en· W2910493247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Thérèse Lussier, Fatoumata Diallo, Pierre Pluye, Roland Grad, Andréa Lessard, Caroline Rhéaume, Michel Labrecque

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité LavalCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de LavalUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceMedicineDrugFamily medicineSample (material)Descriptive statisticsCross-sectional studyHealth carePsychiatryInternal medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To draw a portrait of drug sample distribution and to assess the concordance between drug samples distributed and the medical problems encountered in the ambulatory primary health care setting. DESIGN: were defined as HCPs reporting the use of drug samples. Concurrently, an inventory log sheet was completed by managers of drug samples to document the contents of sample cabinets. Data from the Canadian Disease and Therapeutic Index were used as the criterion standard to assess the consistency between the drug samples found in the cabinets and the profile of the most frequent health problems encountered in primary care. SETTING: All 33 FMTUs that kept drug samples in Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Health care professionals authorized to hand out drug samples (practising physicians, residents, pharmacists, and nurses), and managers of drug sample cabinets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dispensing practices of HCPs; number of doses of each drug contained in the sample cabinets; total market value of the samples; concordance between the drug sample categories made available and the most common medical problems encountered in primary care; and data on safe handling, ethical issues, effect of the pharmaceutical industry on prescribing behaviour, and inventory of samples. RESULTS: Among 859 HCPs, 579 (67%) reported dispensing drug samples. A large proportion of dispensers (88%) were unable to find the specific drug they sought and half of them (51%) provided the patients with a drug sample even if it was not their first choice for treatment. The drug sample cabinet inventory revealed products from 292 different companies and identified a total of 382 363 medication doses for a total value of $201 872. We found gaps among types of drugs provided to patients, those the HCPs would consider useful, and those available in the cabinets. CONCLUSION: Drug samples available in FMTUs do not meet the needs of many patients and HCPs, suggesting that the main driving force for drug sample distribution is not patient care. Policies on drug samples in FMTUs should be uniform across the province, and management should be as strict as in community pharmacies. Otherwise, prohibiting their use should be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→