Fréquence, nature et effets des conseils prodigués par les pharmaciens communautaires au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report presents results from a study of the nature, frequency and impacts of the consultations provided by community pharmacists at the patient’s initiative. The study was carried out in 2017 and 2018 using data from a population survey (913 adults in Quebec) and a survey of pharmacists and patients. The results of this survey highlight the key role played with the Quebec public by community pharmacists. The population survey highlights the central role played by community pharmacists, who do not appear to be a substitute for the roles played by family physicians and other health professionals, with the Quebec population. The results attest to a very high level of satisfaction among Quebec adults regarding the consultations provided by pharmacists. Participants in the survey indicated that the in-person consultation with the pharmacist allowed them to: avoid calling Info-Santé (49%), making an appointment with their family physicians( 44%), to visit a walk-in clinic (41%), to consult another type of health professional (30%) or to go to a hospital emergency room (17%). Potential costs avoided for the health care system are in the order of $ 707 per community pharmacy per working day, based on the average number of consultations per day in the participating pharmacies (13 consultations). Community pharmacists are well equipped to handle the vast majority of patient-initiated consultations and may be more systematically involved in triage on the front line given their skills and availability. View the English version of this report Ce rapport présente les résultats d’une étude concernant la nature, la fréquence et les effets des conseils fournis par les pharmaciens communautaires à l’initiative des patients. L’étude fut réalisée en 2017 et 2018 à partir de données issues d’une enquête populationnelle (913 adultes québécois) et d’une enquête en pharmacie auprès de pharmaciens et de patients. L’enquête populationnelle met en lumière le rôle central que jouent les pharmaciens communautaires, qui ne semble par ailleurs pas se substituer à celui du médecin de famille ou des autres professionnels de la santé, auprès de la population québécoise et montre un niveau très élevé de satisfaction de la population adulte québécoise à l’égard des conseils prodigués par les pharmaciens. Les participants de l’enquête en pharmacie ont indiqué que la consultation en personne auprès du pharmacien leur avait permis : d’éviter un appel à la ligne Info-Santé (49 %), de prendre un rendez-vous avec leur médecin de famille (44 %), de se rendre à une clinique sans rendez-vous (41 %), de consulter un autre type de professionnel de la santé (30 %) ou encore de se rendre à l’urgence d’un hôpital (17 %). Les coûts potentiels ainsi évités pour le système de santé sont de l’ordre de 707$ par pharmacie communautaire par jour ouvrable, en se basant sur la moyenne des consultations réalisées par jour dans les pharmacies participantes (13 consultations). Les pharmaciens communautaires sont bien outillés pour gérer la grande majorité des consultations initiées par les patients et ils pourraient participer de manière plus systématique au triage en première ligne étant donné, d’une part, leurs compétences et, d’autre part, leur grande disponibilité.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".