Clinical services in community pharmacies: a scoping review of policy and social implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical services have allowed pharmacists to shift from product-oriented to patient-oriented services. However, the policy and social implications of clinical services in community pharmacies are not well described. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify these implications. KEY FINDINGS: We searched Pubmed and Embase, from inception to March 2019, as well as grey literature for publications that discussed policy (e.g. pharmacy model and pharmacist status) or social (e.g. role of pharmacists and interprofessional collaboration) implications of clinical services. Publications had to address clinical services provided by pharmacists in community settings that target the global long-term care of patients. We extracted data related to the implications and classified them into themes thereafter. The search process identified 73 relevant publications, of which 13 were included in regard to policy implications and 60 relative to social implications. Two themes emerged from policy implications: implementation and characteristics of policies, and professional status. Pharmacists' independence from distribution, financial coverage of clinical services and innovative models of practice were addressed. Social implications involved three themes: roles and interprofessional collaboration, changes in practice and barriers and model of practices and services. Perceptions of pharmacists' skills, organisational barriers, time constraints, lack of self-confidence and cultural shifts required to implement clinical services were included in these themes. SUMMARY: Our review demonstrates the changing role of community pharmacists in provision of clinical services within the healthcare system. The range of clinical services varies widely from one setting to another. The context of community pharmacy is not well suited to these changes in practice.
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 | 0.025 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".