Patient-oriented pharmacy practice research: Why should we care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacists deal with multiple competing priorities when practising to their full scope.Deciding on what services to implement, how best to implement them and whether care processes are effective are key questions requiring evidence to inform decisions.The routine involvement of patients and pharmacy practice researchers can help improve how the profession of pharmacy asks and answers these questions. What is patient-oriented research and why is it important?The concept of patient-oriented research Patient-oriented research (POR) is defined as "a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patientidentified priorities and improves patient outcomes.This research, conducted by multidisciplinary teams in partnership with relevant stakeholders, aims to apply the knowledge generated to improve health care systems and practices." 1 This definition has 3 main components:
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 | 0.209 | 0.302 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".