MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186946271 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047034

Sexual and reproductive health services provided by community pharmacists: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3186946271 on OpenAlexaff
Javiera Navarrete, Nesé Yuksel, Theresa J. Schindel, Christine Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCHIST-ERAAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloAgenția Națională pentru Cercetare și Dezvoltare
KeywordsMedicineReproductive healthReproductive medicineAlternative medicineHealth services researchFamily medicineSexual medicinePublic healthMedical educationNursingGynecologyEnvironmental healthPregnancyPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacists are increasingly providing patient-focused services in community pharmacies, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Specific SRH areas have been the focus of research, but a broader perspective is needed to position pharmacists as SRH providers. This review explored research that described and evaluated professional pharmacy services across a broad range of SRH areas. DESIGN: Scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library (January 2007-July 2020). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on the description and evaluation of professional pharmacy SRH services provided by community pharmacists. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators screened studies for eligibility, and one investigator extracted the data. Data were analysed to primarily describe professional pharmacy services and intervention outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. The main SRH areas and professional pharmacy services reported were sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections (63%) and screening (39%), respectively. Findings showed that pharmacists' delivery of SRH services was feasible, able to reach vulnerable and high-risk groups, and interventions were highly accepted and valued by users. However, integration into daily workflow, pharmacist remuneration, cost and reimbursement for patients, and policy regulations were some of the barriers identified to implementing SRH services. Studies were primarily in specific areas such as chlamydia screening or hormonal contraception prescribing, while studies in other areas (ie, medical abortion provision, long-acting reversible contraception prescribing and vaccine delivery in pregnant women) were lacking. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlights the expansion of pharmacists' roles beyond traditional product-focused services in a number of SRH areas. Given the potential feasibility, users' acceptability and reach, pharmacists are ideally situated to enhance SRH care access. Future research describing implementation and evaluation of professional pharmacy services in all SRH areas is needed to promote access to these services through community pharmacies and position pharmacists as SRH providers worldwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0160.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.245
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207