A cross-sectional assessment of patient satisfaction with community pharmacy services in Lebanon: The IMPHACT-LB study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: After the pharmacy profession has shifted from product-oriented practices to a more patient-centered approach, patient satisfaction has become an essential indicator of overall quality of care. This study aimed to assess the impact of pharmacy services and pharmacist-patient relationships on patient satisfaction in a crisis context, considering patient characteristics, economic factors, access to care, and health status. Methods: A web-based cross-sectional study (April 11-April 27, 2023) assessed patient satisfaction using validated tools among 865 Lebanese adults. Results: Satisfaction with pharmaceutical care was moderate (60%), varying between 58% and 63%. Notably, higher satisfaction was significantly and positively correlated with having private health insurance (Beta=0.583), taking more medications (Beta=0.166), and receiving advice from pharmacists about a healthy lifestyle (Beta=0.651), while lower satisfaction was associated with a university level of education (Beta=-0.505), older age (Beta=-0.022), and perceiving pharmacists as medication experts (Beta=-1.007). Conclusion: Age, education, health coverage, and patient expectations, in addition to services offered by community pharmacists, significantly affected satisfaction in times of crisis. Stakeholders should address pharmaceutical care holistically, acting concomitantly on improving health coverage, access to care, reasonable expectations, and optimising community pharmacy services.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".