Comparative Analysis of Korean and International Telepharmacy Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to comparatively analyze selected countries' telepharmacy guidelines and propose directions for improving domestic guidelines.Methods: This was a multi-country comparative study analyzing 8 guidelines from 7 countries including South Korea, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Spain, UK and US.The analytical framework, based on WHO and International Pharmaceutical Federation reports, comprised eight core items and was applied to analyze the guidelines.Guidelines' completeness was assessed using a three-tiered scale by two independent researchers.Results: Guidelines generally defined telepharmacy as qualified pharmacists using Information and Communication Technology for remote medication supervision and is emphasized as a supplement to face-to-face services.The primary difference between the Korean and international systems lies in the strictness versus maturity of regulations.International guidelines, often produced by professional organizations, ensure service quality while allowing broader pharmacist autonomy.Five countries, except South Korea and the UK, offered expanded services such as Comprehensive Medication Management (USA) and chronic disease management (Singapore).Korea showed the strictest procedural controls (e.g., volume limits) but lacked explicit standards for service quality or quality management.In contrast, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and the USA required tele-counseling quality to be equivalent to or higher than face-to-face care.Among the countries analyzed, only Korea specified details of the service reimbursement system.Conclusion: To enhance domestic service quality, it is necessary to establish an institutional framework for standardizing counseling criteria, broadening specialized services through social consensus, and systematizing education to strengthen pharmacists' digital competencies, along with the active and voluntary participation of pharmacist associations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".