MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391293018 · doi:10.1002/jac5.1923

A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a medication health literacy workshop for newly and recently arrived refugees

2024· article· en· W4391293018 on OpenAlex
Gina M. Prescott, Shakanya Karunakaran, May Thandar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity at Buffalo
KeywordsRefugeeHealth literacyQualitative analysisLiteracyQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceHealth carePedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Refugees entering the United States are often unfamiliar with the healthcare system and have different medication beliefs. Since 2016, pharmacy students and faculty have been conducting medication literacy workshops to improve knowledge of medications for newly arriving refugees. Objectives The primary study objective was to measure the newly arriving refugees' medication knowledge after a one‐time educational workshop. Methods This was a retrospective quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Participants engaged in a student‐led 90‐min educational workshop utilizing interpreters, translated materials, and demonstrations. Topics included medical definitions, information on getting sick, medication use, and label reading. A translated, postworkshop evaluation included 22 questions grouped into the following categories: demographics ( n = 4), medication use ( n = 7), label reading ( n = 6), access ( n = 3), and cultural beliefs ( n = 2). Three optional, free‐response questions regarding overall workshop feedback were included. Quantitative data was analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Two independent coders reviewed each free‐response question and discussed any discrepancies for consensus. The study team developed key themes based on the codes. Results Twenty‐one workshops were conducted with 419 participants from 42 countries. Correct responses were highest for medication beliefs (84%), label reading (78%), access (74%), and medication use (73%). Prescription label reading ability was high (86%), while preventative medicine understanding was lower (34%). Three major learning themes developed, including (1) Cultural differences impact medication habits, (2) Knowing provider roles and how to access different services in healthcare settings was important, and (3) Understanding how to read a label was useful. Researchers found that demonstrations were helpful in participants' learning and that additional education on prevention and specific disease states would be useful. Conclusion Newly and recently arrived refugees were able to correctly identify basic medication health information through a medication literacy workshop. Additional classes exploring other topics, including preventative medicine and medications, should be considered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.459 · 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