Evaluation of the clinical pharmacist's role in educating women about the benefits and risks of combined oral contraceptive pills in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the pre-intervention knowledge of women regarding the risks and benefits associated with the use of combined oral contraceptive (COC) pills. Then, to investigate the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge of women about the risks and benefits of COC pills. The study adopted two methodologies: a structured interview technique with women selected according to inclusion criteria, and a pre- and postintervention to measure the effect that clinical pharmacist's intervention may have had on them. Women who attended family-planning clinics in the north of Jordan were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions about demographics and questions to assess women's knowledge about COC pills. Then, women attended a 45-min educational session about COC pills. One month later, the questionnaire was redistributed to the participants to assess any difference in their knowledge. Two hundred and ten women were enrolled in the study. One hundred and seventy-seven women completed the study. At baseline, a quarter of the participants relied on other people's experiences as their main source of information with regards to COC pills. Moreover, 28.1% of women considered COC pills harmful. In addition, the results showed that the frequency of correct answers postintervention increased significantly compared to pre-intervention (P < 0.005) including general information about COC pills and the relation between the use of COC pills and cancer. Educational intervention introduced by clinical pharmacists improved the knowledge of women in Jordan regarding COC pills.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".