Pharmacists’ perception about efficacy, safety, and quality of dietary supplements that used for rheumatic disorders in the Iraqi pharmaceutical market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rheumatic diseases are common progressive diseases that associated with chronic pain. Most patients seek to reduce the pain of these diseases by using dietary supplements (DS). Yet, most DS have limited benefits to reduce pain and/or disease progression. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of community pharmacists about the efficacy, safety, and quality of the DS for treatment of rheumatic diseases (DSTRD) in the Iraqi pharmaceutical market. A qualitative study was conducted during February-2023 through face-to-face interview with community pharmacists with ≥6 months of working experience. The interviews were guided through semi-structured open-ended questions. The interviews were recorded using iPhone-11. A hybrid framework-model was used to analyze the data. Interviews were performed with 20 pharmacists. Only 30% of pharmacists considered DSTRD to be effective, whereas 75% of them perceived DSTRD to be safe. One-quarter of the participants considered the quality of DSTRD to be good. All interviewed pharmacists reported that prescribing DSTRD become a common practice. Eleven participants reported that deals with pharmaceutical companies are the main trigger for prescribing DSTRD. Three-quarter of participating pharmacists mentioned that they educate their patient about the dispensed DSTRD. However, only 10% of them educate patients about the possible side effects and interactions of DSTRD. In conclusion, most of the participating pharmacists have doubts about the efficacy, safety, and quality of DSTRD in the Iraqi market. The prescribing of such products by physicians is common and usually triggered by deals with pharmaceutical companies. Pharmacist-education to the patient on these supplements is poor.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".