Patient care and customer services during the COVID-19 pandemic at accredited pharmacies: Pharmacists and patients' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community pharmacists are now the most accessible healthcare professionals, providing advice, information, drugs, and devices across the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Thailand, accredited community pharmacies meet higher standards than qualified community pharmacies, but little is known about the perspectives of accredited community pharmacists and patients in this emergency situation. This study aimed to assess pharmacists' and patients' perspectives on the challenges and opportunities they faced in providing or receiving patient care and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in March-August 2022 in a province located in the eastern part of Thailand. Participants of the study were full-time pharmacists and patients at accredited community pharmacies. A convergent mixed methods design was used and involved quantitative data about the perspectives of participants measured by online self-administered surveys and qualitative open-ended questions. Results: Twenty pharmacists and 416 patients provided complete responses. The meta-inferences were expansive in three standards including physical evidence, quality management, and good pharmacy practices/services for both groups of participants. For the social/community involvement standard, pharmacists' and patients' opinions (free-text responses) confirmed their perspective scores. Conclusions: This study highlights community pharmacy's crucial role in maintaining essential healthcare services during the pandemic, with patients acknowledging and appreciating the dedication of community pharmacists. The mixed methods findings provide valuable insights into pharmacists' and patients' perspectives, facilitating a deeper understanding and exploration of the potential roles community pharmacists can play in a post-pandemic world, embracing new technologies for improved systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".