MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205891771 · doi:10.1177/10781552211073470

Role of clinical pharmacist in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4205891771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Júlia Franco, Rafael Nogueira de Souza, Tácio de Mendonça Lima, Patrícia Moriel, Marília Berlofa Visacri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistPsychological interventionMEDLINEPalliative careFamily medicineClinical pharmacyData extractionScopusAmbulatoryNursingPharmacyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We conducted this scoping review to map and summarize scientific evidence on the role of clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and BVS/BIREME for studies published until November 22nd, 2020. Studies that reported work experiences adopted by clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the third and fourth authors. The pharmacist interventions identified in the included studies were described based on key domains in the DEPICT v.2. DATA SUMMARY: A total of 586 records were identified, of which 14 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Most of them were conducted in the United States of America (n = 5) and Canada (n = 5) and described the workplace of the pharmacist in clinic/ambulatory (n = 10). Clinical pharmacists performed several activities and provided services, highlighting medication review (n = 12), patient and caregivers education (n = 12), medication histories and-or medication reconciliation (n = 6). The pharmacist interventions were mostly conducted for patients/caregivers (n = 13), by one-on-one contact (n = 14), and by face-to-face (n = 13). Pharmacists were responsible mainly for change or suggestion for change in therapy (n = 12) and patient counselling (n = 12). Pharmacist interventions were well accepted by the clinical team. Overall, studies showed that pharmacists, within an interdisciplinary team, had significant impacts on measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, there have been advances in the role of the pharmacist in palliative care of patients with cancer and there are great opportunities in this field. They play an important role in managing cancer pain and other symptoms, as well as resolving drug related problems. We encourage more research to be carried out to strengthen this field and to benefit patients with advanced cancer with higher quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207