Étude comparative de la prise en charge des patients atteints de BPCO dans les pharmacies d’officines françaises et les pharmacies communautaires du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. However, in France as in Quebec, it remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Its management requires a multidisciplinary approach involving all healthcare professionals. The healthcare systems in these two countries differ, influencing the pharmacist's missions according to the prerogatives granted to him. This study aims to compare these differences and identify ways of optimizing the pharmacist's role in this pathology. To this end, a qualitative survey was conducted with three French and three Quebec pharmacists. Analysis revealed a shared perception of the importance of their role with COPD patients. However, pharmacists' lack of familiarity with the latest recommendations limits their involvement. Ongoing training and simplified tools are essential. While pharmacists in Quebec benefit from a wider scope of action, they nevertheless face similar constraints to their French counterparts, particularly in terms of organization and time management. On the other hand, control of inhaled therapies, essential to treatment efficacy, remains inadequate: only a third of pharmacists surveyed systematically check that devices are being used correctly. The study also highlights the fact that, although pharmacists recognize their role in COPD prevention and screening, there is no strategy that actively integrates them into these missions. Consequently, to optimize the management of COPD patients, it seems essential to develop specific screening and follow-up tools, adapted to the medico-economic model of pharmacies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".