The patient experience in a community pharmacy mental illness and addictions program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Bloom Program was designed to enhance pharmacists' care of people with lived experience of mental illness and addictions in Nova Scotia. The Program's demonstration period was from September 2014 to December 2016 and included a qualitative evaluation of the patient experience. METHODS: Patients were recruited for individual interviews through Bloom Program pharmacies. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed following Braun and Clarke's 6-step approach for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten patients were interviewed between May and June 2016. Ten themes were determined through data analysis and included medication management, accessing pharmacists in a new way, providing social support, bridging service gaps, providing interim care, reducing financial barriers, navigation and advocacy, holistic approaches, empowerment through knowledge and awareness and collaboration. DISCUSSION: Pharmacists expectedly provided medication management activities to patients for both physical and mental health concerns in the Bloom Program. Many activities conducted with Bloom Program patients fell outside of dispensing roles and medication management. These activities, such as social support, triage, navigation and increasing access, which were highly valued by patients, are poorly measured and assessed in pharmacy practice research. CONCLUSION: Participants in the Bloom Program reported the significant contributions of pharmacists and pharmacy teams in their overall health and wellness. Future evaluations of interventions like the Bloom Program should include measurement of constructs valued by patients and also consider impacts on inequalities and inequities. Pharmacy practice researchers can benefit from other research and evaluation being conducted for primary care interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".