MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pharmacy Hydroxyurea Education Materials for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: An Environmental Scan and Assessment of Accuracy

2017· article· en· W3082973326 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Charron, Artemis Diamantouros, Mona Azzam, Shannon Lane, Hyra Sapru, Madeleine Verhovsek

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyMedical prescriptionFamily medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea (HU) remains a cornerstone of sickle cell disease (SCD) therapy however its clinical efficacy may be limited by poor patient acceptance and adherence. While barriers to HU use are multifold, patients often relay fears relating to potential side effects of HU as a contributor to drug non-adherence. A common source of information on HU side effects is the patient information handouts (PIHs) that are routinely distributed by pharmacies when dispensing a prescription. We sought to formally evaluate the content and accuracy of HU pharmacy PIHs, including comparison of content with a reference standard PIH developed by the Canadian Haemoglobinopathy Association. METHODS: We obtained a comprehensive list of all accredited pharmacies in Ontario, Canada in 2016 from the Ontario College of Pharmacists (OCP), which totalled 4,150 pharmacies. A representative sample of pharmacies were subsequently contacted by telephone or in-person to obtain pharmacy PIHs on HU. PIHs were assessed according to listed uses of HU, number of inaccurate statements, essential statements based on comparison to the CanHaem reference standard PIH, and reading level (using Flesch-Kincaid and SMOG scales). RESULTS: Six unique HU PIHs were identified, which represented approximately 95% of Ontario pharmacies; PIH A and B were used by 58% and 36.7% of pharmacies, respectively (Table 1). While most of the PIHs listed uses for HU (60% of Ontario pharmacies in total), only 58.3% identified SCD as an indication for drug use. All PIHs contained statements that could be classified as inaccurate and misleading. The number of inaccurate statements ranged from 2-5 per PIH; 95% of distributed PIHs had an average of 4 inaccurate statements per handout. The most frequently encountered inaccuracy related to development of cancer in patients taking HU, namely acute leukemia. Additional inaccuracies included special handling precautions, vaccine inefficacy and overstating the likelihood of developing rare side effects such as, “deadly bleeding problems and infections,” hepatic insufficiency and infertility. On average, pharmacy PIHs included 45% of essential statements present within the reference standard HU patient handout. Missing information themes involved use of HU for management of SCD and specifically, benefits of HU in preventing SCD complications, long term safety data on HU and differentiation between common and uncommon side effects of HU use. The reading level of each pharmacy PIH was also assessed and compared to the grade 6 reading level formally advised for written patient information materials by the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. The average reading level across pharmacy PIHs was 7.85 and 7.83 according to the Flesch Kincaid and SMOG scales, respectively. However, 58% of Ontario pharmacies distributed PIHs with a reading level of 9.2 and 8.2 (Flesch Kincaid and SMOG, respectively) in comparison to the grade 6.2 and 6.7 (Flesch Kincaid and SMOG, respectively) reading level of the CanHaem PIH. CONCLUSION: SCD patients in Ontario who are prescribed HU are likely to receive written information materials from pharmacies that contain inaccurate and misleading statements weighted heavily toward risks of HU therapy and run contrary to published literature. Moreover, the PIHs reviewed in this study contained only 45% of the content deemed necessary for patient education on HU by a panel of experts in SCD. Oftentimes, this information requires a comprehension level beyond that recommended for patients. Through the itemization of written information provided to patients when obtaining their HU prescription, this study identifies a potential gap in the care of SCD patients and an opportunity to improve on the quality of HU PIHs to help patients make well-informed decisions about their health. Download : Download high-res image (107KB) Download : Download full-size image Figure 1 . Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders→French-language works237,207→