Exploration of current pharmacy practice in cardio-oncology: Experiences & perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular complications can occur in oncology patients secondary to certain cancer therapies. Pharmacists are involved in the care of oncology patients who are at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicity related to their cancer therapy. Our study aimed to understand how pharmacists in Canada care to these patients and to explore their experiences, perceptions, and challenges. METHODS: Canadian pharmacists currently involved in the care of patients receiving cancer treatments and at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicity were invited to participate in a 30-min telephone interview using an interview guide. A combination of inductive and deductive reasoning was applied using two coders who independently reviewed the transcribed interviews and identified key concepts and themes. RESULTS: Eight pharmacists were interviewed. Perceived benefits included sharing specialized knowledge and conducting safety assessments. Perceived challenges were the lack of role recognition and resources and fractured continuity of care. Proposed future directions were to play a more substantial role in direct medication management, creation of specific guidance and tools to support the clinical decision-making process, and to understand how pharmacists at other sites were providing care through the creation of a community of practice. CONCLUSIONS: As patient-focused medication specialists, pharmacists help guide clinical decision-making, assess cardiac risk factors, and offer individualized education to meet the holistic needs of oncology patients at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicities. The creation of a cardio-oncology community of practice may allow pharmacists with a common interest to connect, share learnings, and collaborate on how to continue to advance the delivery of care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".