Tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumento de avaliação da consulta farmacêutica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: \nIn the last decades, the pharmaceutical profession has witnessed great changes in practice, and this \nprofessional has joined the professional health care team, promoting the rationalized use of \npharmaceutical drugs. The philosophy of pharmaceutical care is the basis for the services provision \nand defines that the pharmacists' responsibility is to assist, within their professional limits, all the \npatient's health needs, including the pharmacotherapeutic ones. Facing a wide variety of services \nprovided by the pharmacist, which makes it difficult to measure the positive impacts resulting from the \nservices provided by this professional, there is a need to evaluate these professionals' abilities in \nconsultations, even if this activity retains individual characteristics, there must be a certain behavior \nstandardization, so that the clinical service is delivered to the patient effectively. Objective: to \nperform the cross-cultural adaptation and validation for the Portuguese language of the instrument \ncalled The Medication-Related Consultation Framework (MRCF). Methodology: Initially, a Scoping \nReview was carried out with the objective of identifying in the literature the support instruments for \npharmaceutical consultations. In this context, two reviewers carried out the selection process, \nevaluating the titles, abstracts and articles in full. Three categories were used in the title and summary \nselection: 'yes', 'no' and 'maybe'. About the cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument, this was \ntranslated by two bilingual translators, native speakers of Portuguese and proficient in English, did \nindependently the translation to the Portuguese of the original versions of the MRCF instrument. In \naddition to the above, there was the back translation, synthesis of translations, semantic equivalence \nof translations, pre-test and evaluation of psychometric properties Results: The instruments included \nto evaluate the pharmaceutical consultation were: Development and validation of the MedicationRelated Consultation Framework (MRCF); The patient care process (PCP) and Medicine Use Reviews \n(MUR). The MCRF used The Calgary-Cambridge as a guide, however, this instrument was not \nincluded in this review, since it aims to instruct in the process of communication and medical \ninterview. The synthesis of the translations also allowed the performance of grammatical adjustments \nby the experts, to respect the linguistic rules and avoid bias in the interpretation of items whose \ntranslations presented divergent constructions. Conclusion: It is evident that the use of these \ninstruments, as a strategy for standardization of conducts, allows a better evaluation of the \npharmaceutical professional, thus contributing to the improvement of the services provided to the \npatient, as well as having a prominent role in their training.
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 | 0.067 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".