Pharmacists’ knowledge, perceptions and practices regarding frailty: A cross-sectional survey across practice settings in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Data on Canadian pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions about frailty in older adults and its assessment in pharmacy practice are scarce. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 349 Canadian pharmacists was conducted to evaluate pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions and practices regarding frailty. Descriptive analyses summarized responses by practice setting, and a multivariable logistic regression model examined associations between respondent characteristics and the likelihood of assessing frailty. Results: Most respondents were female (70%), aged ≤34 years (47%), Canadian graduates (83%), from Ontario/Quebec (51%) and from urban centres (58%). Although a significant proportion agreed it is important for pharmacists to know (80%) and assess (56%) patient frailty status, only 36% reported assessing frailty in practice. Respondents exclusively practising in a community pharmacy were significantly less likely to agree that it is important for a pharmacist to know or assess frailty status and to report assessing it. Factors associated with a greater likelihood of assessment included positive beliefs about the importance of knowing a patient's frailty status and having a greater proportion of older patients with cognitive or functional impairment in practice. Discussion: Findings suggest that pharmacists generally agree with the importance of understanding frailty as it relates to the appropriate use of medications, but most do not assess it. Further research is needed to identify the barriers to assessing frailty, while guidance is needed on which of the available screening tools can best be integrated into a clinical pharmacy practice. Conclusion: There is an opportunity to improve pharmaceutical care for older adults by providing pharmacists the means and resources to assess frailty in practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".