MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414414388 · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2025.102927

Practices and implementation factors of point-of-care testing for acute upper respiratory tract infections by community pharmacists in Alberta: A cross-sectional survey

2025· article· en· W4414414388 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Omar E. Abdellatife, Scot H. Simpson, Theresa J. Schindel, Jody Shkrobot, Mark Makowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Pharmacists Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRespiratory tract infectionsMEDLINEService (business)PharmacistPharmaceutical careCommunity practiceUpper respiratory tract infection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists in Alberta have a broad scope of practice and may conduct point-of-care (POC) tests for acute and chronic medical conditions. However, little is known about the provision and pharmacists' experiences in POC testing for respiratory infections. OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical services offered by community pharmacist to patients with acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) by describing the types of POC tests performed and differences in implementation factors and confidence between active and inactive URTI POC testing providers. METHODS: Anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey with email invitations sent to 4035 community pharmacists registered with the Alberta College of Pharmacy in February 2024. The survey collected information on demographics and provision of POC testing services. An adapted version of the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) was used to determine barriers and facilitators. The data were summarized descriptively and compared between groups using univariate statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 370 responses were included in the final analysis (response rate: 9.2%, 45% < 40 years old, 65% female, 28% rural, 73% have additional prescribing authorization). Most respondents (87%) provide assessments to patients presenting with URTI symptoms. Three quarters (72.7%) provide POC testing, 65% currently provide URTI POC tests, with 59.79% offering strep throat, 26.5% COVID-19 and 5.9% influenza POC tests. Active providers were more likely to agree or strongly agree to 26 out of 30 of the adapted DIBQ items, indicating that these were facilitators of implementation. The largest differences were in having the necessary resources (relative risk: 5.23; 95%CI: 3.34, 8.18), training (RR: 3.89; 95%CI: 2.57, 5.88) and knowing how (RR: 3.16; 95%CI: 2.33, 4.28) to deliver the service. In both groups, areas with low confidence were performing a focused physical assessment, analyzing rapid molecular tests and performing a nasal swab. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists in our sample commonly provide POC testing for Strep pharyngitis. Our results suggest organizational factors, skills, and knowledge were facilitators of service provision.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.380 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Pharmacists AssociationSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207