Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of an instrument for evaluating the pharmaceutical consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the last decades, the pharmaceutical profession has witnessed great changes in practice, and this professional has joined the professional health care team, promoting the rationalized use of pharmaceutical drugs. The philosophy of pharmaceutical care is the basis for the services provision and defines that the pharmacists' responsibility is to assist, within their professional limits, all the patient's health needs, including the pharmacotherapeutic ones. Facing a wide variety of services provided by the pharmacist, which makes it difficult to measure the positive impacts resulting from the services provided by this professional, there is a need to evaluate these professionals' abilities in consultations, even if this activity retains individual characteristics, there must be a certain behavior standardization, so that the clinical service is delivered to the patient effectively. Objective: to perform the cross-cultural adaptation and validation for the Portuguese language of the instrument called The Medication-Related Consultation Framework (MRCF). Methodology: Initially, a Scoping Review was carried out with the objective of identifying in the literature the support instruments for pharmaceutical consultations. In this context, two reviewers carried out the selection process, evaluating the titles, abstracts and articles in full. Three categories were used in the title and summary selection: 'yes', 'no' and 'maybe'. About the cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument, this was translated by two bilingual translators, native speakers of Portuguese and proficient in English, did independently the translation to the Portuguese of the original versions of the MRCF instrument. In addition to the above, there was the back translation, synthesis of translations, semantic equivalence of translations, pre-test and evaluation of psychometric properties Results: The instruments included to evaluate the pharmaceutical consultation were: Development and validation of the MedicationRelated Consultation Framework (MRCF); The patient care process (PCP) and Medicine Use Reviews (MUR). The MCRF used The Calgary-Cambridge as a guide, however, this instrument was not included in this review, since it aims to instruct in the process of communication and medical interview. The synthesis of the translations also allowed the performance of grammatical adjustments by the experts, to respect the linguistic rules and avoid bias in the interpretation of items whose translations presented divergent constructions. Conclusion: It is evident that the use of these instruments, as a strategy for standardization of conducts, allows a better evaluation of the pharmaceutical professional, thus contributing to the improvement of the services provided to the patient, 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 | 0.123 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".