Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Asthma is one of the most common chronic health conditions, affecting 900,000 Ontarians and 2.4 million Canadians. Research evidence indicates that pharmacists can play a critical role in the management of asthma yet there is a paucity of studies which focus on community-based pharmacist asthma interventions on adults in Ontario, Canada. Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate an asthma-specific pharmacist-led intervention over a 12-month period in relation to patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Methods: This prospective cluster randomized controlled study required trained intervention pharmacists to identify asthma patients, deliver medication reviews and educate patients in order to improve asthma measures. The validated measures selected for the study were adherence to medication, asthma knowledge and peak expiratory flow rate. 12 pharmacies in and around Toronto, Ontario were recruited. Results: A total of 81 patients were identified by pharmacists as potential participants over the course of the program. Of these, 19 consented to participate and 14 completed the program. The intervention group saw a statistically significant improvement of asthma knowledge scores (p=0.02). In both groups, all patients had improved medical adherence scores after completion of the program. Diurnal variation between control and intervention groups was found to be significantly different. Control patients had significantly more days of high variability than the intervention group. Conclusion: The implementation of a pharmacist-provided comprehensive education program in a community pharmacy setting had a positive impact on patients’ diurnal variation, asthma related knowledge and adherence to medication. While the target sample size was not achieved and results cannot be generalized, this study is an important step towards understanding the benefits of a pharmacist-delivered intervention in asthma management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".