MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacist-prescribed contraception using clinical protocols: A review of the gray literature

2025· review· en· W4410883571 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

VenueContraception · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineGrey literaturePharmacistGynecologyMEDLINEPharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many women face barriers to starting and continuing contraception due to difficulties in accessing primary care. Pharmacist-prescribed contraceptives have emerged as a strategy to improve access. This approach offers an additional pathway for women to access contraceptive care, with benefits such as lower costs, shorter wait times, and extended hours. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to analyze clinical protocols used by community pharmacists to prescribe and continue hormonal contraceptives and evaluate their quality. STUDY DESIGN: This review utilized gray literature since protocols are often not formally published. The search involved four processes: searching a gray literature database, using Google, reviewing health agency websites, and consulting international experts. Records were included if they met the definition of a clinical protocol, were for community pharmacist prescribing or continuation of hormonal contraception, and were written in English. Grounded Theory was used for analysis. Quality appraisal was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: Thirty clinical protocols were identified from the USA (n = 23), Canada (n = 2), the UK (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1), and Australia (n = 2). Pharmacists were authorized to prescribe and continue contraceptives in 27 protocols and continue contraceptives only in three. Key requirements included age restrictions, measurement of blood pressure and body mass index, review by a health professional, patient self-completed screening tools, and use of best-practice guidelines. The lowest-scoring domains in the quality assessment were "Editorial Independence," "Applicability," and "Rigor of Development." CONCLUSIONS: The review provides insights into the current international landscape of pharmacist-prescribed contraception and highlights key components of clinical protocols. It offers valuable information for policymakers to support the development of frameworks for pharmacist-prescribed contraception globally.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.345 · 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