Experience of Patients with COPD of Pharmacists’ Provided Care: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high global morbidity and mortality. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide services which may reduce the burden of this disease on the health system, patients, and their families. The study aimed to understand the perceptions and experiences of patients living with COPD with pharmacists' provided care in COPD diagnosis and management. The study was guided by qualitative description methodology and reported using the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 participants who were recruited from community pharmacies, seniors' centres, a general practice clinic, and a pulmonary rehabilitation centre. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified categories that revealed great variation in participants' experience of pharmacy care based on the depth of patient-pharmacist engagement. Participants who regarded their pharmacists as an essential member of their healthcare team and those who did not, had contrasting experiences with education, communication, and ability to form connections with their pharmacists. For patients with COPD, it is important that the pharmacist is proactive in engaging patients through effective communication, education/provision of relevant information, identification of patient needs, and consistent provision of care with empathy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".