Pediatric pharmacists’ perspectives on essential skills and activities for community pharmacists caring for pediatric patients: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Provision of care to pediatric patients represents a set of unique challenges for pharmacists. Pharmacists practising in pediatric-specialty areas (acute care or ambulatory) have unique perspectives on approaches to pediatric care that can be shared to support pharmacists less familiar with this group of patients in providing effective, patient-centred care. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study using data from pharmacist interviews to quantify and qualitatively describe the approaches to care most commonly reported by pediatric-specialty pharmacists when asked to provide advice to pharmacists on providing pharmaceutical care to infants and children. Data were coded in duplicate using an inductive approach, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The number of times a theme (or subtheme) was mentioned and the number of pharmacists who mentioned it were used as markers of the relative importance of the content. RESULTS: The themes (and subthemes) that emerged as most important were clinical activities (dose checks, considering indication, using up-to-date height/weight), caregiver counselling (demonstrating measurement, discussing administration), medication safety (using consistent concentrations of liquids), compounded medications (risks of, use of caution), adherence (formulation considerations, palatability), avoiding use of over-the counter products (except analgesics/antipyretics) and use of external supports (colleagues, caregivers, resources). CONCLUSIONS: 2020;153:xx-xx.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".