Still Burning: An Exploration of the Impacts of the 2018/2019 Tasmanian Summer Bushfires on Community Pharmacy Operations in Affected Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Human-induced climate change is increasing the likelihood and severity of wildfires across the globe. This has negative consequences for the health of affected communities through the loss of health systems' infrastructure and disrupted health services. Community pharmacies are a central hub between patients and the health care system and can provide continuity of care during wildfires. However, there is little in peer-reviewed literature about the impacts of wildfires on community pharmacy operations. STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was therefore to explore the impacts of the 2018/2019 summer bushfires in Tasmania, Australia on community pharmacy operations in affected areas. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with four community pharmacists who were working in the affected region during the bushfires. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analyzed using two methods- manual coding utilizing NVivo software and Leximancer analysis. Inter-rater reliability was ensured by two researchers analyzing the data independently. Differences in coding were discussed and agreement reached through negotiation amongst the research team. RESULTS: From the manual coding analysis, five key themes emerged - communication and collaboration; support; patient health challenges; pharmacist experiences in delivering health care; and future planning. These aligned with the five themes that emerged from the Leximancer analysis - community; local; town; patients; and work. Participants described working during the wildfires as difficult, with multiple challenges reported including communication difficulties, operational barriers such as power cuts, legislative barriers, logistical issues with obtaining and storing medication supplies, and lack of preparation, support, and funding. They highlighted a lack of operational and financial support from the government and received most assistance from local council bodies and local branches of professional pharmacy organizations. CONCLUSION: During disasters, community pharmacies help reduce the burden on public hospitals by maintaining medication supplies and treating patients with minor ailments. However, increased support and inclusion in disaster management planning is needed to continue this role.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".