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.

Pharmacy-based immunization in rural USA during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of community pharmacists from five southeastern states

Introduction Immunization rates for seasonal and non-seasonal vaccines dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the extent to which community pharmacies in the USA continued to serve as immunization sites during the pandemic. This study compared 1) the types and perceived changes in non-COVID-19 vaccine doses administered at rural community pharmacies in 2020 (during the pandemic) to 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2) the delivery of non-COVID-19 immunization services in 2020 to 2019. Methods A mixed-mode (paper/electronic) survey of a convenience sample of 385 community pharmacies operating in rural settings and have administered ≥1 vaccine in 2019 and 2020 was distributed in May-August 2021. Survey development was informed by relevant literature, pre-tested with three individuals, and pilot-tested with 20 pharmacists. Non-response bias was assessed, and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results Of the 385 community pharmacies, 86 qualified pharmacies completed the survey (Response Rate = 23.8%). The percentage of pharmacies offering a given vaccine in 2019 and 2020 were similar;with one exception, a higher percentage of pharmacies reported having MMR administered for adults in the pharmacy in 2020 (McNemar's test;p-value = 0.0253). For each given vaccine, the majority of respondents did not perceive a change in the number of doses administered in 2020 compared to 2019. Further, the majority reported no difference in how they delivered immunization services during and pre-pandemic. However, a small percentage of respondents (6.0–22.0%) adapted their services by adopting several measures to ensure the safety and continuity of immunizations during the pandemic. Conclusion Findings highlight the importance of community pharmacies as immunization sites during the pandemic. Community pharmacies continued immunization delivery at community pharmacies during the pandemic with almost no noticeable change to types and doses of vaccines compared to pre-pandemic nor the process of vaccine delivery.

Pharmacy-based immunization in rural USA during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of community pharmacists from five southeastern states.

INTRODUCTION: Immunization rates for seasonal and non-seasonal vaccines dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the extent to which community pharmacies in the USA continued to serve as immunization sites during the pandemic. This study compared 1) the types and perceived changes in non-COVID-19 vaccine doses administered at rural community pharmacies in 2020 (during the pandemic) to 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2) the delivery of non-COVID-19 immunization services in 2020 to 2019. METHODS: A mixed-mode (paper/electronic) survey of a convenience sample of 385 community pharmacies operating in rural settings and have administered ≥1 vaccine in 2019 and 2020 was distributed in May-August 2021. Survey development was informed by relevant literature, pre-tested with three individuals, and pilot-tested with 20 pharmacists. Non-response bias was assessed, and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: Of the 385 community pharmacies, 86 qualified pharmacies completed the survey (Response Rate = 23.8%). The percentage of pharmacies offering a given vaccine in 2019 and 2020 were similar; with one exception, a higher percentage of pharmacies reported having MMR administered for adults in the pharmacy in 2020 (McNemar's test; p-value = 0.0253). For each given vaccine, the majority of respondents did not perceive a change in the number of doses administered in 2020 compared to 2019. Further, the majority reported no difference in how they delivered immunization services during and pre-pandemic. However, a small percentage of respondents (6.0-22.0%) adapted their services by adopting several measures to ensure the safety and continuity of immunizations during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of community pharmacies as immunization sites during the pandemic. Community pharmacies continued immunization delivery at community pharmacies during the pandemic with almost no noticeable change to types and doses of vaccines compared to pre-pandemic nor the process of vaccine delivery.

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.

Increasing use of immunization information systems for routine vaccinations in independent community pharmacies: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Only 60% of adults nationwide and just 36.8% of adults in Alabama have immunization data recorded in an Immunization Information System (IIS). The objective of this study, which took place before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was to evaluate the impact of an IIS training program on pharmacists' IIS enrollment, participation, awareness, knowledge, intention, and attitudes. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 2019 among Alabama pharmacists (N = 41) practicing in independently owned pharmacies and providing vaccination services but whose pharmacy was not enrolled in Alabama's IIS (Immunization Patient Registry with Integrated Technology [ImmPRINT]). Intervention pharmacists were offered a 2-hour IIS training program, including an online continuing pharmacy education article, demonstration videos, implementation guide, and informational flyer. Control pharmacies received the informational flyer only. Pharmacy-level outcomes, including enrollment and participation, were obtained from ImmPRINT administrative records. Pharmacist-level outcomes, including awareness, knowledge, intention, and attitudes, were self-reported using baseline, 1-month, and 3-month surveys. Two-way mixed analysis of variance, chi-square, and independent t tests were used to analyze differences in outcomes between and within groups. RESULTS: Enrollment in ImmPRINT was significantly greater among intervention pharmacists' pharmacies (P = 0.035). In particular, 59.1% of intervention pharmacies compared with 26.3% of control pharmacies were enrolled in ImmPRINT at 3 months. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of participation in ImmPRINT. Intervention pharmacists' awareness of IIS was significantly greater than control pharmacists (P = 0.028) at 1 month (postintervention). Furthermore, the IIS training program significantly improved intervention pharmacists' knowledge (P = 0.030) and attitudes (P = 0.016) toward IIS over 3 months compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacist-centered training program focused on practical strategies to integrate IIS into pharmacy workflow. Results show that pharmacists' enrollment, awareness, knowledge, and attitudes significantly improved as a result of this training. As pharmacists become more involved in immunization efforts, particularly in response to COVID-19, awareness of and participation in responsible immunization documentation are critical.

Lessons learned recruiting a diverse sample of rural study participants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Residents of rural areas have been a hard-to-reach population for researchers. Geographical isolation and lower population density in rural areas can make it particularly challenging to identify eligible individuals and recruit them for research studies. If the study is about a stigmatizing topic, such as opioid overdose, recruitment can be even more difficult due to confidentiality concerns and distrust of outside researchers. This paper shares lessons learned, both successes and failures, for recruiting a diverse sample of rural participants for a multi-state research study about naloxone, an opioid overdose reversal agent. In addition, because our recruitment spanned the period before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., we share lessons learned regarding the transition to all remote recruitment and data collection. We utilized various recruitment strategies including rural community pharmacy referrals, community outreach, participant referrals, mass emails, and social media with varying degrees of success. Among these modalities, pharmacist referrals and community outreach produced the highest number of participants. The trust and rapport that pharmacists have with rural community members eased their concerns about working with unknown researchers from outside their communities and facilitated study team members' ability to contact those individuals. Even with the limited in-person options during the pandemic, we reached our recruitment targets by employing multiple recruitment strategies with digital flyers and emails. We also report on the importance of establishing trust and maintaining honest communication with potential participants as well as how to account for regional characteristics to identify the most effective recruitment methods for a particular rural area. Our suggested strategies and recommendations may benefit researchers who plan to recruit underrepresented minority groups in rural communities and other historically hard-to-reach populations for future studies.