MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401364752 · doi:10.2196/60000

The Perspectives of Community Pharmacists Toward the Name-Based Rationing System During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4401364752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
En-ling Chen, Chyi‐Huey Bai, Paul T. Kocis, Wenke Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPreparednessCronbach's alphaGovernment (linguistics)Public healthCross-sectional studyMedicineFamily medicinePharmacistHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingDiseasePharmacyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Taiwan's public health system, community-based pharmacists are key first-line health care providers due to their high accessibility. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the pharmacists played a central role in the distribution of these supplies through the Name-Based Rationing System (NBRS), during an acute shortage of masks and testing kits, that helped reduce the spread of the disease. The NBRS, an innovative government-guided strategy developed after the COVID-19 outbreak, provided equitable and convenient access to masks and COVID-19 test kits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate (1) Taiwanese pharmacists' knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) of COVID-19, with the intention to assess their preparedness for public health emergencies and their capabilities to implement COVID-19-related policies effectively; (2) their perspectives toward the NBRS; and (3) the association between individual's KAP and corresponding perspectives toward the NBRS. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2 major cities in Taiwan, from June 18 to September 11, 2022, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. To gauge community pharmacists' KAP, a 66-question instrument was developed using guidelines from the Taiwanese Centers for Disease Control, the International Pharmaceutical Federation, and the Taiwanese Pharmacist Association. The instrument's internal consistency reliability was ascertained using Cronbach α (0.819), and its content validity was verified by field experts. RESULTS: Overall, 343 Taiwanese community pharmacists were recruited in the study. Among them, 88% (303/343) scored high on knowledge domain questions related to SARS-CoV-2; 58% (201/343) and 39% (136/343) held positive and neutral attitudes toward COVID-19-related policies, respectively; and 77% (266/343) practiced infectious disease prevention measures in compliance with official guidelines. The results demonstrated a high level of competency in pharmacists in a public health crisis. It revealed that factors including age, pharmacy characteristics, and the number of customers were associated with their perceptions and willingness to continuously participate in the NBRS. Overall, the community pharmacists showed greater support for the COVID-19-testing NBRS compared with the mask NBRS, because of the more favorable influence on the revenue and workforce of the pharmacies and the well-being of the pharmacists. Responses also highlighted concerns about rapid government policy changes and supply dynamics, underscoring the importance of effective communication and considering supply availability in facilitating a successful NBRS. CONCLUSIONS: The strong KAP of the community pharmacists justified the government leveraging their expertise in Taiwan's COVID-19 response. While community pharmacies have proven to be essential distribution centers through the NBRS, improving community connections, communication with the government, and supply management are recommended to strengthen the system. These potential approaches aim to ensure successful NBRS implementation and better preparedness for future public health emergencies. Overall, pharmacists have demonstrated their integral role in achieving equitable outcomes and their dedication to public health efforts during crises.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→