MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388228509 · doi:10.1177/1934578x231210251

How Pharmacies and Retailer Shops Convey Information on Health Products to Their Customers

2023· article· en· W4388228509 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey MacEachern, Mitchell Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Product Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyProduct (mathematics)Packaging and labelingBusinessDiscretionMarketingAdvertisingMedicineFamily medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Natural health products are frequently used by many people. However, many of these individuals do not discuss these products with their physicians, and instead seek information about the products from pharmacies or natural health product retailers. Previous research has shown that not all pharmacists are comfortable answering questions about these products as they receive little training in this area; natural health product retailers are unregulated and receive training at their own discretion. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the information provided by pharmacies and natural health product retailers pertaining to use, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions for four currently popular products: garlic, peppermint, black licorice, and apple cider vinegar. Methods The literature surrounding these products was reviewed and compared to information provided by pharmacies and natural health product retailers. The interviews were conducted by an investigator who presented as a potential client to closely mimic real-world interactions. Statistical analysis was limited to generating proportions and 95% confidence intervals for statements made about each product. Results Overall, 10% of statements that were made regarding the uses for the four natural health products were consistent with the evidence-based literature, 40% of statements were consistent with the common use of the products, 47% of statements were inconsistent with the literature and 3% of statements reflected general opinions about the product. There was variation in the accuracy of statements depending on which product was discussed. When discussing adverse effects associated with the products 38% of statements made by pharmacists and 44% made by NHP retailers were consistent with the literature. Sixty-nine percent of pharmacists and 44% of NHP retailers correctly identified potential drug interactions for the products. Discussion The majority of statements were consistent with common use but few evidence-based statements were made and a large proportion of statements that were inconsistent with literature were made. Most interviewees required prompting to discuss adverse effects and potential drug interactions. Conclusions This study highlights a need for increased training of pharmacists and natural health product retailers to ensure that they are familiar with these popular natural health products and can provide accurate information to clients regarding use, adverse effects, and possible drug interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Product CommunicationsSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207