An elderly, urban population: Their experiences and expectations of pharmaceutical services in community pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the pharmaceutical services experiences of an elderly, urban population in relation to their expectations in community pharmacy.Design: and setting: The study was a cross-sectional descriptive empirical study and was conducted by means of a structured questionnaire, designed and administered by there searcher, in face-to-face interviews at an old age residence in the participants' own dwellings (N = 242). The management of this specific village approached the researcher about healthcare concerns for their residents and granted permission for this study to be conducted.Main outcome and results: The sample population of elderly patients (n = 67) had a higher expectation of community pharmacists, in terms of pharmaceutical services, than what they had experienced. Significant differences were found in all aspects examined. Effect size, amongst others, revealed that expectations were not met in discussions about the effect of other medicines on their chronic medicine (d = 1.94); whether they had any medicines left from previous issues (d = 1.77) and questions regarding existing chronic conditions (d = 1.69). There was an association between questions, regarding the use of chronic medicines at pharmacies and at other healthcare professionals (d =0.26), as well as the supply of written information at pharmacies and other healthcare professionals (d = 0.42). The study reveals that this population has expectations of their community pharmacists that are not met.Conclusions: Pharmacists can be active members of the healthcare team and restore their professional image in the eyes of the community, if they renew their attitudes, have confidence in their abilities and understand their role in patient care. The community pharmacist should focus on the health-related quality of life of the individual patient and identify the immediate healthcare needs of their unique community, with specific reference to vulnerable populations like the elderly. Pharmacists should establish themselves as the go-to healthcare professional.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".