MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995004597

Family physician perceptions of a medication assessment clinic located within a pharmacy school.

2017· article· en· W2995004597 on OpenAlexaffabout
Derek Jorgenson, Eric Landry, Katherine J Lysak

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily medicinePharmacyMedicineLikert scaleClinical pharmacyThematic analysisPharmacistPatient satisfactionMedical prescriptionNursingPsychologyQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the clinical services provided at a patient care clinic run by pharmacy faculty and students are valuable to family physicians. DESIGN: Paper-based postal survey. SETTING: The Medication Assessment Centre located within the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians who had more than 1 patient who underwent a complete assessment at the Medication Assessment Centre between April 1 and October 26, 2015, were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physician experience and satisfaction based on quantitative analysis of 6 Likert scale survey questions and thematic analysis of 2 open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: A total of 81 questionnaires were mailed to family physicians, with a response rate of 43.2% (n = 35). Respondents reported a very high level of support and satisfaction with the clinical pharmacist program; most (88.6%) stated that it helped them to improve the health of their patients. CONCLUSION: The family physicians who responded to the questionnaire perceived the services provided at the patient care clinic located within the pharmacy school at the University of Saskatchewan to be valuable to their practices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→