MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391896146 · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.02.009

Factors influencing Implementation of point-of-care testing for acute respiratory infectious diseases in community pharmacies: A scoping review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation research

2024· review· en· W4391896146 on OpenAlexafffund
Omar E. Abdellatife, Mark Makowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPharmacyPoint-of-care testingMedicineIntensive care medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests pharmacy-based point-of-care (POC) testing for acute respiratory infectious diseases is beneficial, but not widely implemented. A theory-informed review to understand the factors influencing service Implementation is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent, range, and nature of research available on enablers and barriers to POC testing Implementation for infectious respiratory diseases in community pharmacies and identify their underpinning theoretical constructs using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: Scoping review guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A comprehensive search from inception to June 28th, 2022 was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest dissertations without date or language restriction. Eligible articles investigated barriers and/or facilitators to strep throat, influenza, C-reactive protein, and COVID-19 POC testing in community pharmacies. Two reviewers independently performed title & abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Content analysis was conducted according to a pre-established Framework and concepts were mapped to the CFIR. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Most originated from the USA (n = 24; 56%) and investigated strep throat. The majority were testing/initial Implementation projects (n = 23; 54%) conducted in urban centers (n = 17; 40%). Thirty-six (84%) studies used quantitative methodology, while 6 (14%) were qualitative. Only four studies (9%) used theory to guide their inquiry. The 124 identified Implementation factors mapped onto 21 CFIR constructs, covering all 5 domains. The domain "Outer setting" (n = 35/43; 81%) was most prevalent as were the constructs "Patient needs and resources," (n = 21/43; 49%) "External policy & incentives," (n = 17/43; 40%) and "Relative advantage" (n = 17/43; 40%). CONCLUSION: A large volume of research explores factors influencing the Implementation of pharmacy-based respiratory infectious disease POC testing services, but few studies use qualitative or theory-informed methods. Knowledge of the wide range of facilitators and barriers identified can help pharmacy managers and researchers design strategies to support successful service Implementation.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.014
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.866
GPT teacher head0.750
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Social and Administrative PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207