Experience and perspectives of users and non-users of the Ask your pharmacist teleconsultation platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing trend concerning the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for seeking health-related information such as information on medications and side effects. However, people looking online for health information cannot always judge the credibility of the information. Objectives: This study aimed to describe patients' and pharmacists' experience using an asynchronous teleconsultation platform entitled "Ask Your Pharmacist" (AYP) and gather their perspectives and those of various healthcare and social services professionals providing primary care. Methods: We performed semi-structured individual interviews over the telephone with patients having used the platform, pharmacists providing teleconsultation services on the platform, and various professionals delivering healthcare and psychosocial services to ambulatory patients. The questions explored specific themes, such as the perceived utility and impacts of the platform. We transcribed the interviews and performed a content analysis. Results: We interviewed eight patients, six AYP pharmacists, and 15 healthcare and social services professionals. Participants perceived that the platform was simple to use and accessible. They also perceived that AYP promoted the visibility and the value of pharmacists' services. Some constraints were also shared, notably regarding questions requiring immediate attention or about complex situations. Conclusions: The experience and perspectives of users and non-users of the AYP platform are mostly positive, but concerns were also raised regarding patients' safety. Results suggest that AYP could be a complementary tool to offer to ambulatory patients for simple, general and non-urgent problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".