Clinical pharmacy services in an ambulatory oncology clinic: Patient perception and satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that patients rate pharmacists more favourably when the pharmacist expresses interest in the patient and attends to patients' perspectives. There is limited available evidence evaluating both patient perception and satisfaction regarding clinical pharmacy services provided in an ambulatory oncology clinic. METHODS: This was a prospective mixed methods study involving surveys and patient interviews. Consenting participants completed a survey at their first visit evaluating their perceptions of the importance of the clinical pharmacy services offered in the ambulatory oncology clinic. They completed a second survey 6-8 weeks later to re-evaluate their perceptions and to measure satisfaction ratings. The final component of this study involved semi-structured one-on-one telephone interviews to gather qualitative data regarding the study objectives. RESULTS: A total of 35 participants completed the survey, of which eleven completed one-on-one patient telephone interviews. Patients perceived the clinical pharmacy services assessed as important to their care before receiving treatment. The ratings of the importance of the pharmacist in managing patients' nausea/vomiting significantly decreased when remeasured, whereas the importance of meeting the pharmacist in the clinic significantly increased. The importance of the role of the pharmacist was highlighted in patient interviews as well: patients particularly valued the pharmacist's initiative to meet them in the clinic, the education provided by pharmacist, and the pharmacist's accessibility throughout treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients in the ambulatory oncology clinic perceived the services offered as important to their care and they were highly satisfied.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".