Nature and perceived benefits of patient-initiated consultations in community pharmacies: A population survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of community pharmacists in enhancing patient care has received increased attention. However, there is a paucity of literature on the nature, frequency, and perceived impacts of patient-initiated consultations in community pharmacies. We aim to describe the profile of patients seeking advice from community pharmacists as well as the nature and impact of those consultations. A survey was conducted with Quebec adults who had consulted a pharmacist in the previous four weeks. Data was collected in 2017 and 1104 agreed to participate (25.3%). Of those, 93 were withdrawn due to incomplete data and 98 failed to meet the inclusion criteria. Sample representativeness was ensured by quota sampling (gender, age) after stratification by region. Among the 913 respondents, 46% had consulted a pharmacist more than once during the four weeks prior to the survey. Individuals with a university degree consulted less often than those without (1.97 vs. 2.17 times; t = 2.0; p < .05) and participants with one or several chronic diseases consulted more frequently than those having no chronic disease (2.18 vs. 1.94 times; t = 5.7; p < .05). Older adults (55+) consulted more often for themselves compared to younger (18–34) and middle-aged (35–54) adults (1.53 vs. 1.31 vs. 1.44 times; F = 4.0; p < .05). Concerning the consultations, 58% were related to medications and 33% to health problems. In terms of impacts, 81% of consultations were perceived to have prevented the use of other healthcare resources. Patient satisfaction with their consultations was high with an average score of 8.75 on a 10-point scale (SD = 1.63). Findings reveal that the reasons for consulting a community pharmacist are diverse, most being related to medications or health issues. Patients reported that pharmacists were able to manage most consultations without referring them to other health care resources or professionals, and their satisfaction with their consultation was high. Community pharmacy; counselling; patient satisfaction; primary health care; surveys and questionnaires.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".