A narrative review on the consultation tools available for pharmacists in the United Kingdom: do they facilitate person-centred care?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify consultation tools cited in the published literature and undertake a narrative review which establishes their scope to support the delivery of person-centred medicine-focused consultations between community pharmacists and patients in the United Kingdom (UK). KEY FINDINGS: Nine consultation tools used in a pharmacy context were identified. Four tools (Calgary-Cambridge guide, MRCF, MUR and NMS advanced services and PaCT) were selected for further appraisal. None of the tools identified provided a suitable format or sufficient guidance to address all components required for the delivery of a person-centred patient consultation in practice. SUMMARY: Tools available to UK pharmacists are inadequate for fully supporting delivery of a person-centred consultation in practice. Revision of existing tools or creation of more pharmacy-specific tools will support UK pharmacists' delivery of person-centred consultations in practice.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it