MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391293794 · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.01.006

The accessibility of pharmacist prescribing and impacts on medicines access: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4391293794 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistMedicineCINAHLFamily medicinePharmacyMedical prescriptionReceiptHealth careMEDLINENursingPsychological interventionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist prescribing has been introduced in several countries as a strategy to improve access to health care and medicines. However, the direct impacts of pharmacist prescribing on medicines access, and the overall accessibility of pharmacist prescribing services, are not well known. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the direct impacts of pharmacist prescribing on medicines access, and the accessibility of pharmacist prescribing services, in community and primary care settings. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for studies published in English between 01 January 2003 to 15 June 2023. Both quantitative and qualitative primary studies were included if they described pharmacist prescribing in a primary care setting. Outcomes included findings related to access to medicines as a result of pharmacist prescribing (primary outcome), and access to pharmacist prescribing services overall (secondary outcome). Narrative synthesis of outcomes was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were included from four countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand). Thirteen studies provided evidence that pharmacist prescribing may improve medicines access in several ways, including: increasing the proportion of eligible people receiving medicines, increasing the number of overall dispensed prescriptions, or reducing time to receipt of treatment. The remainder of the included studies reported on the accessibility of pharmacist prescribing services. Published studies highlight that pharmacist prescribers practicing in community settings are generally accessible, with pharmacist prescribers viewed by patients as easy and convenient to consult. There was limited evidence about the affordability of pharmacy prescribing services, and a number of potential equity issues were observed, including reduced access to pharmacist prescribers in more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and those with greater proportions of populations at risk of health inequities, such as culturally and linguistically diverse communities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that pharmacist prescribing services were both highly accessible and beneficial in improving access to medicines. However, measures of medicines access varied, and few studies included direct measures of medicines access as an outcome of pharmacist prescribing, highlighting a need for future studies to incorporate direct measures of medicines access when assessing the impact of pharmacist prescribing 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.816
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.114 · 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