ABSTRACT
Pharmacists promote vaccinations and challenge misconceptions about vaccine hesitancy, yet pharmacists' knowledge of vaccine confidence has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to compare pharmacists' knowledge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine confidence before and after a live continuing education (CE) session. This pretest-posttest study evaluated the differences before and after a live CE session on COVID-19 vaccine confidence provided to pharmacists at a nationwide health technology company. Participants' total pretest and posttest scores were compared using paired t-tests, while pretest and posttest scores for each item were compared using chi-squared tests. A Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an alpha level of 0.005. A total of 279 pharmacists participated in this study. After the CE session, mean knowledge scores increased (5.2 ± 1.5 to 7.4 ± 1.35, p < 0.0001). After the CE session, there was no significant increase in pharmacists' knowledge about the approach that is not recommended when discussing vaccination beliefs with a patient (71.3% to 77.4%, p = 0.099), determinants of vaccine uptake (83.9% to 87.8%, p = 0.182), and social determinants of health that can influence vaccination rates (93.6% to 96.4%, p = 0.121). There was a significant change in pre- and posttest knowledge for the remaining seven items.
ABSTRACT
Gender inequity is a critical Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) issue that has continued to lead to workplace disparities. While gender-based differences in pay are well documented, there are multiple other facets of academic work-life (eg, teaching, research, service, resources, etc.) wherein gender inequities exist but have never been systematically identified or reported. COVID-19 has further exacerbated these inequities. One reason for continued existence of gender disparities in the workplace is lack of focused attention and emphasis on this issue. A recently formed Gender Equity Task Force has taken the first steps to systematically explore gender inequity in all areas of academic pharmacy work life. The purpose of this commentary is to highlight the scope of the problem of gender inequity in pharmacy academia and offer solutions that the Academy can implement to mitigate the impact of gender inequity in the future.
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated a pharmacist-led telephonic Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program for rural patients in Arizona with poor access to healthcare services. A pharmacist provided telephonic MTM services to eligible adult patients living in rural Arizona communities with a diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension. Data were collected and summarized descriptively for demographic and health conditions, clinical values, and medication-related problems (MRPs) at the initial consultation, and follow-up data collected at 1 and 3 months. A total of 33 patients had baseline and one-month follow-up data, while 15 patients also had three-month follow-up data. At the initial consultation, the following MRPs were identified: medication adherence issues, dose-related concerns, adverse drug events (ADE), high-risk medications, and therapeutic duplications. Recommendations were made for patients to have the influenza, herpes zoster, and pneumonia vaccines; and to initiate a statin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker, and/or rescue inhaler. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that while pharmacists can identify and make clinical recommendations to patients, the value of these interventions is not fully realized due to recommendations not being implemented and difficulties with patient follow-up, which may have been due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional efforts to address these shortcomings are therefore required.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, many that have chosen not to be vaccinated have done so because of vaccine hesitancy. This highlights the need for tools that accurately capture the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs towards COVID-19 vaccines, and provide steps toward improving vaccine acceptance. METHODS: Participants of the Arizona CoVHORT (COVID-19 Cohort) received a one-time, electronic based cross-sectional questionnaire intended to capture underlying motivations regarding vaccination, as well as hesitations that may prevent people from getting vaccinated. Rasch analysis was conducted among 4703 CoVHORT participants who had completed the vaccine questionnaire to assess questionnaire reliability and validity. Response categories were grouped to optimize scale functioning and to ensure independent probabilities of participant endorsement. RESULTS: A total of 4703 CoVHORT participants completed the questionnaire, of whom 68% were female, and who had a mean age of 48 years. Participants were primarily White (90%), highly educated (63% with a college degree or above, with most respondents (45%) having an income of more than $75,000 per annum. The results indicated the questionnaire has good reliability and construct validity for assessing attitudes and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines. In-fit mean-squares for included items ranged from 0.61 to 1.72 and outfit mean-squares ranged from 0.56 to 1.75, and correlation coefficients ranged from 0.25 to 0.75. The person-item map indicated normal distribution of logit scores measuring perceptions about COVID-19 vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: The CoVHORT vaccine questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory reliability and construct validity in assessing attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Overall results provide a starting point for a reliable and valid tool to assess knowledge and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination, ultimately providing public health professionals with an instrument to assess the factors that are associated with vaccine acceptance or hesitancy.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic led to global healthcare consequences including insomnia. This survey used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) to assess sleep quality at two time points (July 2020 and November 2020) among employees at a healthcare technology and services organization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 1280 eligible employees, 251 complete responses (response rate, RR = 19.6%) in July and 108 (RR = 8.4%) in November were received and analyzed. The overall mean global PSQI scores were 7.3 ±3.6 in July and 7.7 ±3.6 in November 2020 (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in any of the PSQI components or global scores between periods. Our findings indicate poor reported sleep quality among our study participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional studies are needed to assess the longitudinal impact on sleep quality post-COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Three pharmacist-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes exist to facilitate medication therapy management (MTM) reimbursement (codes 99605, 99606, and 99607). However, no studies have used CPT codes in administrative claims databases to identify subjects who have received MTM services. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of MTM services provided, using CPT codes identified in an administrative dataset. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a subset of Medicare Part D individuals from the IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Research Databases (2009-2015). Researchers identified beneficiaries who received MTM services using CPT codes 99605, 99606, and 99607. RESULTS: Of the 16,483,709 individuals in the dataset, only 3,291 had CPT codes indicating that they received MTM services, representing an overall prevalence of 0.020%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPT codes as an indicator of MTM service provision resulted in far lower MTM utilization rates than in published literature. Reliance on CPT codes to identify MTM services in administrative claims is not recommended, given that it limited the researchers' ability to properly identify patient receipt of such services. More accurate methodologies are warranted for identifying MTM use and its effects on patient outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Pharmacy Quality Alliance; Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); and SinfoniaRx. The funding sources had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. Tate, Chinthammit, and Campbell completed this work during their employment at the University of Arizona. Pickering was an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of this study. Black is employed by Merck. Axon reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; Campbell reports a grant from the Community Pharmacy Foundation; Chinthammit reports fees from Eli Lilly; Black has received a grant from Merck; Warholak reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and Novartis, all unrelated to this study. Taylor reports grants from Tabula Rasa Op-Co, during the conduct of the study, and from the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the conduct of this study. This research was accepted as a poster presentation at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL, but was not presented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An abstract was published in Value in Health, 2020;23(Suppl 1):S305.