MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400453595 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.138

139 Pharmacists’ involvement in shared decision making: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4400453595 on OpenAlexaff
Léa Langlois, Valérie Carnovale, Théo Stefan, Michèle Dugas, Patrick Blouin, Marie Baron, Marie France Demers, Michael Gionfriddo, Aline Kaufmann, Laury Boily-Carette, Jean-Philippe C Lavoie, Louis S Rivard, Olha Svyntozelska, Audrey Turmel, Laurie Voyer, Juliette Demers, Jenny Jin, Patricia J. Erwin, Larry Prokop, Annie LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMedical decision makingKnowledge managementProcess managementMedicineBusinessFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Pharmacy practice has evolved considerably in many healthcare systems, moving towards more direct involvement in patient care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an essential part of high-quality, patient- centered care. This study aimed to assess the manner and the extent to which pharmacists are involved in SDM, and the barriers and facilitators to their involvement. <h3>Methods</h3> We conducted a scoping review using the methodology from the Joanna Briggs Institute and included any type of document about SDM in pharmacy or involving pharmacists, provided that SDM was explicitly mentioned. Searches were carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane RCT and Systematic Review. Pairs of reviewers independently screened documents and extracted data. A descriptive analysis of study characteristics and a thematic analysis of content relevant to the objectives was performed. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 302 references was evaluated for eligibility, with 28 full-length papers reporting on 24 studies included for analysis. SDM was infrequently performed with patients and with other healthcare professionals as part of multidisciplinary teams. Pharmacist-led SDM interventions described in the literature consisted mostly of medication reviews with the goal of deprescribing in older patients, and discussion of treatment options or management issues with patients initiating chemotherapy, at risk or living with diabetes, and taking antidepressants. Barriers and facilitators concerned pharmacists’ attitudes towards SDM, interprofessional collaboration, relationships with patients, skills and resources. <h3>Discussion</h3> While infrequent, pharmacist participation in SDM is possible and beneficial, specifically where complex medication decisions need to be made while considering patients‘ goals, such as the treatment of chronic conditions or the reduction of potentially inappropriate prescribing. To facilitate their full participation, many challenges must be addressed. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This review did not find evidence that pharmacists widely practiced SDM, but suggested some avenues for their involvement, consistent with the expanding scope of pharmacy practice.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207