Barriers, knowledge, and training related to pharmacists’ counselling on dietary and herbal supplements: a systematic review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are recognized as one of the most accessible healthcare providers and are licensed to advise patients on drugs and health products including dietary and herbal supplements (DHSs). The objective of this study was to identify barriers, knowledge, and training that pharmacists report related to DHSs counselling. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception to May 8th, 2020. Eligible articles contained qualitative data with a specific focus on pharmacists' perceived knowledge, training, and barriers to DHSs counselling. Relevant data were extracted, and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. The following three main themes were identified: challenges to pharmacists obtaining DHSs education, postgraduate workplace challenges surrounding DHSs, and pharmacists' perceived role and importance on DHSs. Low knowledge of DHSs and the limited regulations surrounding DHSs acting as a barrier to counselling were common findings supported by the eligible articles. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of pharmacists' knowledge and awareness of DHSs stems from a variety of factors including a lack of education and training in the field, limited regulations surrounding DHSs, and inadequate availability of DHS information resources in the pharmacy. Pharmacists were unable to confidently counsel patients due to these aforementioned factors in addition to reporting that they lacked time. Further research that reviews pharmacy education and workplace training, and improving DHS regulations are warranted future directions.
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 | 0.038 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".