MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106024229 · doi:10.7939/83209

Role of Pharmacists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management

2025· dissertation· en· W7106024229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralCOPDPulmonary diseasePsychosocialPopulationHealth careSmoking cessationDisease managementInhaler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are foundational for integrated primary healthcare delivery and population health management. A key PCMH principle is chronic disease management, which requires collaboration among healthcare professionals to meet patients' medical and psychosocial needs. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well suited to benefit from collaborative care. The expanding role of pharmacists positions them as suitable for close collaboration in managing chronic diseases, including COPD. Pharmacists may contribute to COPD management through detecting adverse drug reactions, medication reconciliation, smoking cessation counseling, addressing treatment adherence, and inhaler technique assessment. Besides participating in case-finding activities including referral patients to spirometry, diagnosis, and treatment initiation. Objectives: Aim one is to map pharmacists' activities and collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, describe outcomes of pharmacist-physician collaborative care in COPD according to the Economic, Clinical, Humanistic Outcomes (ECHO) model. Aim two is to understand current COPD management practices by physicians and examine their perceptions of COPD clinical services provided by community pharmacists within Alberta. Method: The first project was a scoping review that followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. A comprehensive search from January 2003 to August 2024 was conducted using Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and the first 100 results of Google Scholar. The search strategy employed a combination of "pharmacist”, "COPD”, "collaboration", and "physician" concepts, incorporating MeSH terms and expanded free-text terms. The second project was an online cross-sectional survey conducted with a convenience sample of respirologists, emergency medicine, and family medicine physicians within Alberta between November 1st, 2023, to November 1st, 2024. The survey tool was developed by the authors based on previous literature. Results: In project 1, Most studies originated from the USA (n=11; 61%) and used observational research designs (n=15; 83%) to evaluate outcomes. Multi-component interventions were common and the main pharmacists’ activities were: 1) Medication optimization (n=16; 89%), 2) COPD monitoring (n=18; 100%), 3) Screening and diagnosis (n=4; 22%), and 4) Other activities (n=12; 67%). Integrated services were delivered by pharmacists co-located with physicians in 12 studies (67%); 8 (44.4%) studies scored high on collaboration scale (≥6 out of 10). The most commonly reported outcomes were clinical (n=11; 61%) particularly hospital-related outcomes, followed by humanistic (n=8; 45%) most commonly quality of life, and economic (n=7; 39%) primarily cost savings. In project 2, Of the 96 individual surveys returned, 52 were complete. The majority (n=38, 73.1%) had experience collaborating with pharmacists providing clinical services and 68% (n=26) of these rated pharmacist’s services as good or very good. Two-thirds of respondents (n=34; 66%) encounter 6 or more COPD patients/month. Patients had access to smoking cessation programs and required medications. Access to timely pulmonary rehabilitation; specialist referral and post-hospitalization assessment were viewed as inadequate. Eighty-one percent of physicians agreed that pharmacists have an important role in COPD care. Regarding assessment, most participants (n=36, 69%) agreed that pharmacists can inform physicians about the need for spirometry in those with suspected COPD, but only half (n=25, 48%) supported pharmacists performing spirometry in patients at risk. The majority agreed to items relating to pharmacist roles in patient and caregiver education. Regarding management, half of the respondents (n=25, 49%) agreed that pharmacists could assist with managing COPD exacerbations, while almost all (n=51, 98%) agreed that pharmacists can ensure COPD patients have up-to-date immunizations. Conclusion: Using a scoping review and cross-sectional survey, this thesis explored the pharmacists’ activities in COPD care and the outcomes of these collaborative practices in addition to the perceptions of physicians about the care provided and the role of community pharmacists in COPD management. The findings highlighted considerable variability in pharmacist interventions, tailored to address diverse patient needs. Collaborative approaches involving physicians and pharmacists in COPD management may have a positive impact on both health-related and economic outcomes, although the impact on humanistic aspects remains inconsistent. Also, the results of the survey showed most respondents recognized that community pharmacists play an important role in patient education and ensure that treatment aligns with current evidence-based practices. However, physicians' perspectives varied and there was less support for pharmacists' capacity to contribute to the process of diagnosing patients with COPD. Most of the participating physicians believed that the majority of their patients had adequate access to the recommended care. Additional research is necessary to investigate physicians' views on pharmacists' roles in COPD management to support high-quality COPD care.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207