Uptake of Travel Health Services by Community Pharmacies and Patients Following Pharmacist Immunization Scope Expansion in Ontario, Canada

Pharmacists' perceptions of the new pharmaceutical vaccination service in Romania: a comprehensive first two-years evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacy-based vaccination services are now available in 56 countries, including Romania, that started administering the flu-vaccines in the community pharmacies from 2022. Assessing how pharmacists managed this new pharmaceutical service in Romania is the subject of this study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among all the pharmacies from Romania that were authorized to provide this service (442 pharmacies, from which 53 were in rural areas). An online survey was created using Google Forms and included 28 items, with 24 closed-ended questions and 4 open-ended questions. The questionnaire covered six sections: General information, Patient perspective, Authorization and training within the pharmacy, Administration of flu vaccine services, Pharmacy logistics, and Staff satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were applied.

RESULTS

In total, 180 pharmacists participated (response rate was 41%), and the respondents were the pharmacists who administered flu vaccines in these pharmacies. Among the respondents, 92.8% were from urban community pharmacies, and most of them were from Bucharest (26.1%) and East Romania. 88% of respondents considered that this new service will significantly impact the future increase in vaccine coverage rates in Romania. Regarding patients' perception of this pharmaceutical service (provided by pharmacists), the vaccination service was evaluated very positively by 63% patients and positively by 18% patients, with statistically different perceptions between the types of the pharmacies (p < 0.01). A very positive vaccination evaluation was observed more often among national chain pharmacies (73.1%) rather than among local chain pharmacies (35.9%) or independent pharmacies (36.4%). Regarding logistical barriers, 39% of pharmacies reported no issues with vaccine supply. Moreover, 97% of pharmacies had adequate protective materials to safely administer vaccines. In terms of overall satisfaction, 23% of pharmacists reported being very satisfied, while 39% indicated they were satisfied with the new pharmaceutical service they were providing. The majority (82%) felt that their salaries should be increased related to the vaccination service. Additionally, there is a need for improvements in the pharmacy schedule and the advance scheduling of vaccinations.

CONCLUSION

This study was developed to assist future health policies through expansion of advanced pharmaceutical services, and adding other vaccines to community pharmacy portfolios.

Impact of pharmacist interventions on immunisation uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Under-utilisation of immunisation services remains a public health challenge. Pharmacists act as facilitators and increasingly as immunisers, yet relatively little robust evidence exists of the impact elicited on patient health outcome and vaccination uptake.

Objective

To evaluate the influence of pharmacist interventions on public vaccination rate.

Methods

SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2023 to retrieve non- and randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if no comparator group to pharmacist involvement was reported. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses using random-effect models, were performed.

Results

Four RCTs and 15 non-RCTs, encompassing influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and tetanus-diphtheria and pertussis vaccine types, and administered in diverse settings including community pharmacies, were included. Pooled effect sizes revealed that, as compared to usual care, pharmacists, regardless of their intervention, improved the overall immunisation uptake by up to 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)] while immunisation frequency doubled when pharmacists acted specifically as advocators [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)].

Conclusion

While the evidence for pharmacist immunisers was mixed, their contribution to immunisation programmes boosted public vaccination rate. Pharmacists demonstrated leadership and acquired indispensable advocator roles in the community and hospital settings. Future research could explore the depth of engagement and hence the extent of influence on immunisation uptake.

Practices, barriers and facilitators to the delivery of pretravel health services by community pharmacists: A scoping review using the theoretical domains framework

BACKGROUND

The involvement of community pharmacists (CPs) in the provision of pretravel health services is increasing due to the increase in international travelers, the increased risk of travel-related diseases, and the expansion of pharmacists' scope of practice in some countries. In order to improve the quality and effectiveness of pretravel health care provided by CPs, a greater understanding of the practices, barriers, and facilitators is required.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing studies on pretravel health services provided by CPs, and the barriers, and facilitators.

METHODS

The PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for pertinent studies from their inception to February 2023. A manual search was also conducted of prominent travel medicine journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of the included studies. Potential barriers and facilitators were mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

There were twelve studies included in the review. Pretravel health advice was the most prevalent form of pretravel health services. Within ten domains of the TDF, various factors that either facilitate or impede the provision of pretravel health services by CPs were identified.

CONCLUSION

The provision of pretravel health services by CPs may be affected by a number of practitioner and organizational factors. The provision of pretravel health services can be facilitated by informational resources, training and education in travel medicine, and collaboration amongst healthcare providers.

Types and outcomes of pharmacist-managed travel health services: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pharmacists have an important role in providing travel health services and medications to travelers. However, given the limited literature on this topic, the aim of this study is to systematically review the types and outcomes of pharmacist-managed travel health services.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in four electronic databases, namely Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and ProQuest to identify studies published in English from 1999 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria included the studies that reported an experience of providing dedicated travel health services by pharmacists and reported the outcomes and/or evaluation of these travel health services.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified from the literature and included in the review. The pharmacists have provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services including pre-travel risk assessment, routine and travel-related vaccination service, prescribing or recommending medications for travel-related illnesses, counseling and travel health advice. Overall, 94-100% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with pharmacist-managed travel health services. In addition, a good acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations for vaccines and travel-related mediations was reported with most studies reporting an overall acceptance rate of ≥75% (acceptance rate range: 48%-94.2%). In addition, high rates of acceptance of other nonpharmacological advices were noted.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists with training in travel medicine have successfully provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services. Most travelers were highly satisfied with the pharmacy-based travel health services and accepted the pharmacist recommendations.

Identifying vaccination deserts: The availability and distribution of pharmacists with authorization to administer injections in Ontario

Introduction:

Pharmacist-administered immunizations have been associated with improved vaccination rates; however, little is known about whether areas with little to no access to this service (“vaccination deserts”) exist. The objective of this work is to determine the geographic availability of pharmacists with authorization to administer injections in the province of Ontario.

Methods:

Ontario College of Pharmacists registry data were used to identify patient care–providing pharmacists in community pharmacies and their ability to administer injections. Their number of hours worked was converted into full-time equivalents (FTEs), assuming 40 hours per week represents 1 FTE. Practice site(s) were mapped by postal code and presented by Public Health Unit (PHU) area. Communities within PHUs were further categorized as urban or rural and northern or southern, with ratios of FTEs per 1000 population calculated for both injection-trained and non-injection-trained pharmacists.

Results:

In total, 74.6% of Ontario’s practising community pharmacists are authorized to provide injections. Northern PHUs had slightly better access to pharmacist injectors (0.61 FTEs/1000 overall vs 0.56/1000 in the south), while rural communities had lower availability (0.41 FTEs/1000) than urban communities (0.58 FTEs/1000). PHUs with greater population size and density had greater availability of pharmacist immunizers, while PHUs with greater land area were more likely to not have any immunizing pharmacists present ( p < 0.001 for all).

Discussion:

As pharmacists increasingly become preferred vaccination providers, awareness of disparities related to access to pharmacy-based immunizations and collaboration with public health and primary care providers to address them (e.g., through mobile vaccination clinics) will be required to ensure equitable access. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2022;155:xx-xx.

Travel Medicine Curricula across Canadian Pharmacy Programs and Alignment with Scope of Practice

Limited research exists on pharmacy students’ training in travel medicine, and how this aligns with scope of practice. This research aimed to detail travel medicine education across pharmacy programs in Canada and map this against the scope of practice for pharmacists in each university’s jurisdiction. A survey based on the International Society of Travel Medicine’s Body of Knowledge was developed and distributed to all Canadian undergraduate pharmacy schools to identify topic areas taught, teaching modalities utilized, and knowledge assessment performed. Educational data was collected and analyzed descriptively, and compared to pharmacists’ scope of practice in the province in which each university is located. Training provided to students varied significantly across universities and topic areas, with topics amenable to self-care (e.g., traveller’s diarrhea and insect bite prevention) or also encountered outside of the travel context (e.g., sexually transmitted infections) taught more regularly than travel-specific topics (e.g., dengue and altitude illness). No apparent relationship was observed between a program’s curriculum and their provincial scope of practice. For example, training in vaccine-preventable diseases did not necessarily align with scope related to vaccine administration. Alignment of education to current and future scope will best equip new practitioners to provide care to travelling patients.

Pharmacists as Immunizers: The Role of Pharmacies in Promoting Immunization Campaigns and Counteracting Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccines represent fundamental public health interventions aimed to counteract or, at least, partially mitigate the severe epidemiological and economic burden generated by communicable disorders, in terms of (i) outcome-related, (ii) behavior-related productivity gains, and (iii) community externalities in developed settings as well as in developing countries. Despite their importance, several parents choose not to immunize their children due to the rising phenomenon of anti-vaccination movements that divulge vaccine-related “fake news” and “post-modern, post-factual truths”. Vaccine hesitancy represents a threat that can seriously jeopardize the implementation and success of vaccination campaigns. Within this framework, from a public health perspective, community pharmacies can play a vital role in that pharmacists can: (i) act as immunizers (vaccine distributors, educators, facilitators and administrators), (ii) improve vaccine-related health literacy and vaccination coverage rates as well as (iii) remove barriers and obstacles to the access to healthcare settings offering immunization services and (iv) counteract vaccine hesitancy.

Development and Testing of a Clinical Practice Framework for Pharmacists to Assess Patients' Travel-Related Risks: The 5W Approach to Travel Risk Identification

Objective: To assist with identifying patients who may be managed by pharmacists without additional travel medicine training, versus those who may benefit from referral, we developed and validated a clinical practice framework. This framework was then piloted in eight pharmacies in Ontario, Canada, from March to August 2019. Methods: A panel of experts, comprised of physicians and pharmacists from Ontario, Canada, holding a Certificate in Travel Health^TM from the International Society of Travel Medicine was recruited. This panel participated electronically in the development of the framework in three stages: (1) Sharing their current approach when performing information gathering and assessing risk in a traveling patient; (2) judging of items collated from all panellists on the basis of how essential they are to a risk assessment; and (3) validation of items deemed essential by the panel using the Item and Average Content Validity Index. The framework was then released to community pharmacies, where pharmacists that self-identified as beginners to travel medicine completed pre- and post-test phase surveys to determine the utility of the framework. Key Findings: A total of 64 items for consideration were deemed essential enough to proceed to content validation, organized into 5 ‘W’ domains: Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Each item was ranked by the experts according to its relevancy, resulting in an Average-Content Validity Index of 0.91. The resulting framework was titled “The 5W Approach to Travel Risk Identification.” This clinical practice framework is the first published assessment tool for travel medicine tailored for pharmacy’s scope of practice that has been content validated. Pharmacists reported that the framework is simple to use and provides structure for interactions with travelling patients. However, it may not be as beneficial for those with a higher level of travel medicine expertise than the average pharmacist. Conclusion: The 5W Approach tool allows pharmacists inexperienced in travel medicine to collect information when required to use their professional judgement when assessing traveling patients as either high-risk (requiring a referral to a travel medicine specialist) or low-risk. With the aim of supporting pharmacists to be more confident in caring for traveling patients and increasing their involvement in travel medicine, future research will test this framework for feasibility in Canadian community pharmacy practice.