MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911804407 · doi:10.1177/1715163518811065

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update

2019· review· en· W2911804407 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sherilyn K. D. Houle, Caitlin Carter, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Kelly Grindrod

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient careMedicineBusinessIntensive care medicineNursingMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed. STUDY SELECTION: Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria and fee structure. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service. CONCLUSION: 2019;152:xx-xx.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0170.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207