Naloxone Analogy and Opioid Overdose Terminology Preferences among Rural Caregivers: Differences by Race.

BACKGROUND: Despite national and state policies aimed at increasing naloxone access via pharmacies, opioid overdose death rates rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among Blacks and American Indians (AI) in rural areas. Caregivers, or third parties who can administer naloxone during an overdose event, are important individuals in the naloxone administration cascade, yet no studies have explored rural caregivers' opioid overdose terminology and naloxone analogy preferences or whether these preferences differ by race. OBJECTIVES: To identify rural caregivers' overdose terminology and naloxone analogy preferences and determine whether preferences differ by race. METHODS: A sample of 40 caregivers who lived with someone at high risk of overdose and used pharmacies in four largely rural states was recruited. Each caregiver completed a demographic survey and a 20-45-minute audio-recorded semi-structured interview that was transcribed, de-identified and imported into a qualitative software package for thematic analysis by two independent coders using a codebook. Overdose terminology and naloxone analogy preferences were analyzed for differences by race. RESULTS: The sample was 57.5% White, 35% Black, and 7.5% AI. Many participants (43%) preferred that pharmacists use the term "bad reaction" to refer to overdose events over the terms "accidental overdose" (37%) and "overdose" (20%). The majority of White and Black participants preferred "bad reaction" while AI participants preferred "accidental overdose." For naloxone analogies, "EpiPen" was most preferred (64%), regardless of race. "Fire extinguisher" (17%), "lifesaver" (9.5%), and other analogies (9.5%) were preferred by some White and Black participants but not AI participants. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that pharmacists should use the "bad reaction" term and "EpiPen" analogy when counseling rural caregivers about overdose and naloxone, respectively. Caregivers' preferences varied by race, suggesting that pharmacists may want to tailor the terminology and analogy they use when discussing naloxone with caregivers.

COVID-19 booster vaccination in rural community pharmacies.

This study assessed rural community pharmacists' attitudes about COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and explored whether rural pharmacies offered these booster doses. Of the 80 rural Southeastern U.S. pharmacists who completed the online survey, the majority (n = 68, 85 %) offered boosters and 42 (52.5 %) had received the booster themselves. Alabama and Mississippi offered boosters less often than other states, and pharmacists who had foregone receiving COVID-19 vaccination or booster doses were less likely to offer the booster to their patients. Additionally, many pharmacists reported that they and their patients felt the booster was not needed. Community pharmacies provide access points for the COVID-19 booster in rural areas. Interventions for both pharmacists and patients are needed to address hesitancy and improve booster uptake in these communities.

Rural community pharmacists' ability and interest in administering COVID-19 vaccines in the Southern United States.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are often the most accessible health professional in rural areas, which makes them well positioned to increase vaccine access in their communities. This study sought to document rural pharmacists' ability to and interest in administering coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations. METHODS: A sample of community pharmacists participating in a rural community pharmacy practice-based research network in the United States completed an online survey that assessed (1) demographic characteristics, (2) previous COVID-19 vaccine training, and (3) ability to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Data were collected between late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Descriptive statistics and correlations were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 69 of 106 pharmacists completed the survey (response rate = 65%). Approximately half of pharmacists were ready (52%) or actively taking steps (39%) to provide COVID-19 vaccines in the next 6 months. Pharmacies had a median of 2 staff members who were authorized to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Almost half (46%) estimated they could administer more than 30 vaccinations per day. Most pharmacies could store vaccines at standard refrigeration (90%) and freezing (83%) levels needed for thawed and premixed vaccines, respectively. Most pharmacists planned to access COVID-19 vaccines through an agreement with a state or local public health entity (48%) or by ordering through group purchasing organizations (46%). Only 23% of pharmacists had received any COVID-19 vaccine training, and only 48% very much wanted to get the vaccine themselves. Several variables, including pharmacy type and pharmacists' vaccine attitudes and previous COVID-19 training, were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with the anticipated number of COVID-19 vaccines pharmacies could administer daily. CONCLUSION: Even early in the nation's COVID-19 vaccine rollout, most rural pharmacies were interested in and preparing to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Few rural pharmacists had received COVID-19 training, and many expressed some hesitancy to receive the vaccine themselves. The number of vaccines pharmacists could administer varied with pharmacy and pharmacist characteristics.

Rural community pharmacies' preparedness for and responses to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have documented rural community pharmacy disaster preparedness. OBJECTIVES: To: (1) describe rural community pharmacies' preparedness for and responses to COVID-19 and (2) examine whether responses vary by level of pharmacy rurality. METHODS: A convenience sample of rural community pharmacists completed an online survey (62% response rate) that assessed: (a) demographic characteristics; (b) COVID-19 information source use; (c) interest in COVID-19 testing; (d) infection control procedures; (e) disaster preparedness training, and (f) medication supply impacts. Descriptive statistics were calculated and differences by pharmacy rurality were explored. RESULTS: Pharmacists used the CDC (87%), state health departments (77%), and state pharmacy associations (71%) for COVID-19 information, with half receiving conflicting information. Most pharmacists (78%) were interested in offering COVID-19 testing but needed personal protective equipment and training to do so. Only 10% had received disaster preparedness training in the past five years. Although 73% had disaster preparedness plans, 27% were deemed inadequate for the pandemic. Nearly 70% experienced negative impacts in medication supply. There were few differences by rurality level. CONCLUSION: Rural pharmacies may be better positioned to respond to pandemics if they had disaster preparedness training, updated disaster preparedness plans, and received regular policy guidance from professional bodies.

Medicaid prescription limits and their implications for naloxone accessibility.

BACKGROUND: Expanding access to and utilization of naloxone is a vitally important harm reduction strategy for preventing opioid overdose deaths, particularly in vulnerable populations like Medicaid beneficiaries. The objective of this study was to characterize the landscape of monthly prescription fill limit policies in Medicaid programs and their potential implications for expanding naloxone use for opioid overdose harm reduction. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multi-modal online and telephonic data collection strategy was used to identify and describe the presence and characteristics of monthly prescription fill limit policies across state Medicaid programs. Contextual characteristics were described regarding each state's Medicaid enrollment, opioid prescribing rates, and overdose death rates. Data collection and analysis occurred between February and May 2020. RESULTS: Medicaid-covered naloxone fills are currently subject to monthly prescription fill limit policies in 10 state Medicaid programs, which cover 20 % of the Medicaid population nationwide. Seven of these programs are located in states ranking in the top 10 highest per-capita opioid prescribing rates in the country. However, 8 of these programs are located in states with opioid overdose death rates below the national average. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries at high risk of opioid overdose living in states with monthly prescription fill limits may experience significant barriers to obtaining naloxone. Exempting naloxone from Medicaid prescription limit restrictions may help spur broader adoption of naloxone for opioid overdose mortality prevention, especially in states with high opioid prescribing rates. Achieving unfettered naloxone coverage in Medicaid is critical as opioid overdoses and Medicaid enrollment increase amid the COVID-19 pandemic.