Systematic review of empiric studies on lockdowns, workplace closures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions in non-healthcare workplaces during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic: benefits and selected unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions within non-healthcare workplaces and community-level workplace closures and lockdowns on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, selected mental disorders, and employment outcomes in workers or the general population. METHODS: The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions. The exclusion criteria included modeling studies. Electronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from January 1, 2020, through May 11, 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis and sign tests were performed. RESULTS: A total of 60 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 40 studies on COVID-19 outcomes, 15 on anxiety and depression symptoms, and five on unemployment and labor force participation. There was a paucity of studies on physical distancing, physical barriers, and symptom and temperature screening within workplaces. The sign test indicated that lockdown reduced COVID-19 incidence or case growth rate (23 studies, p < 0.001), reproduction number (11 studies, p < 0.001), and COVID-19 mortality or death growth rate (seven studies, p < 0.05) in the general population. Lockdown did not have any effect on anxiety symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.02). Lockdown had a small effect on increasing depression symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.21), but publication bias could account for the observed effect. Lockdown increased unemployment (pooled mean difference = 4.48 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.79, 7.17) and decreased labor force participation (pooled mean difference = -2.46 percentage points, 95% CI: -3.16, -1.77). The risk of bias for most of the studies on COVID-19 or employment outcomes was moderate or serious. The risk of bias for the studies on anxiety or depression symptoms was serious or critical. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric studies indicated that lockdown reduced the impact of COVID-19, but that it had notable unwanted effects. There is a pronounced paucity of studies on the effect of interventions within still-open workplaces. It is important for countries that implement lockdown in future pandemics to consider strategies to mitigate these unintended consequences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration # CRD42020182660.

Comparing open-ended question methods to vignette methods to explore willingness to obtain pre-exposure prophylaxis access in pharmacies among black men who have sex with men.

Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) are at higher risk of HIV transmission than any other group; however, their uptake of the highly effective HIV prevention medication, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is low. In collaboration with a communitybased organization in Atlanta, Georgia, we explored ten HIV-negative BMSM's willingness to obtain PrEP in pharmacies using standard open-ended and vignette qualitative methods. Three overarching themes were identified: privacy, patient-pharmacist interactions, and HIV/STI screening. While open-ended questions allowed participants to provide broad answers on their willingness to receive prevention services at a pharmacy, the vignette drew out specific responses to facilitate in-pharmacy PrEP delivery. Using both openended questions and vignette data collection strategies, BMSM reported high willingness to screen for and uptake PrEP in pharmacies. However, the vignette method allowed for greater depth. Open-ended questions elicited responses that highlighted general barriers and facilitators of PrEP dispensing in pharmacies. However, the vignette allowed participants to customize a plan of action that would best fit their needs. Vignette methods are underutilized in HIV research and may be helpful in supplementing standard open-ended interview questions to uncovering unknown challenges about health behaviors and obtain more robust data on highly sensitive research topics in HIV research.

Willingness to Discuss and Screen for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Pharmacies Among Men Who Have Sex With Men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the willingness to discuss and be screened for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in pharmacies among MSM. METHODS: Led by Georgia's Fulton County Board of Health, this study surveyed individuals who attended 2 Atlanta-based Gay Pride events in 2018. This analysis was limited to those who identified as men who have sex with men (MSM) who were not HIV positive and reported never using PrEP. Multivariable regression was used to determine the correlates of willingness to discuss and be screened for PrEP in-pharmacy. RESULTS: Most (69%) were willing to discuss PrEP with pharmacy staff and 61.35% were willing to be screened for PrEP in-pharmacy. Those who were interested in PrEP were significantly more willing to discuss PrEP in-pharmacy compared to those not interested in PrEP (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.65; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.11-2.48). Race was not associated with willingness to discuss PrEP with pharmacy staff. However, black MSM (BMSM) were less willing to be screened in pharmacies than white MSM, until we accounted for interest in PrEP (PR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09-1.48). DISCUSSION: Pharmacies may be an optimal setting to expand PrEP access to reach racial minorities who have the highest need but are not being reached. Pharmacy-based PrEP discussions and screening could improve awareness of HIV status and increase PrEP knowledge and uptake. Future studies should determine optimal pharmacy conditions under which PrEP screening and uptake are acceptable for BMSM.

Support and perceived barriers to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis screening and dispensing in pharmacies: Examining concordance between pharmacy technicians and pharmacists.

OBJECTIVES: Recent legislation to expand pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) screening and dispensing in pharmacies may significantly improve PrEP access for people at a high risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. Studies have shown that pharmacists show wide support for PrEP expansion in pharmacies. However, pharmacy technicians are often the first point of contact for patients in pharmacies and are required to implement many of the tasks to ensure patients of a pharmacy receive adequate services. The purpose of this study was to assess pharmacists' and pharmacy technicians' perspectives regarding the implementation of PrEP screening and dispensing. METHODS: We qualitatively examined whether pharmacy technicians' (n = 6) support and perceived barriers to screening and dispensing PrEP in pharmacies were concordant with those of pharmacists (n = 7). Pharmacy staff were recruited from high-risk HIV neighborhoods in Atlanta, GA using AIDSVu (Atlanta, GA). Two independent coders used MAXQDA (Berlin, Germany) and performed thematic data analysis and unitization to determine agreement. RESULTS: Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians expressed strong willingness and support for screening and dispensing PrEP in pharmacies. Both groups expressed concerns about the time and the resources needed to perform PrEP screening and dispensing. Technicians, however, also reported concerns about privacy for patients, the need for community support and awareness of pharmacy-based PrEP screening, and recommended scheduling of PrEP screening activities during a limited part of the day to facilitate screening. Pharmacists reported fewer barriers but reported a need for more training of pharmacy staff to assist with PrEP screening and dispensing implementation. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy technicians discussed more barriers compared with pharmacists who were largely centered around practical considerations (i.e., logistics and workflow) that may affect the success of PrEP screening and dispensing. Given technicians' pivotal role in the pharmacy, implementation of pharmacy-based PrEP services should address technicians' perceived barriers in addition to those of pharmacists.

Pharmacy-based pre-exposure prophylaxis support among pharmacists and men who have sex with men.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perceptions and support for pharmacy-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery among pharmacists and men who have sex with men (MSM). DESIGN: A qualitative study from April 2017 to December 2018. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The researchers used purposive sampling to identify MSM participants and AIDSVu to identify pharmacists in high-human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) zip codes in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Eight MSM and 6 pharmacists consented to participate in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions and support for PrEP delivery in pharmacies. RESULTS: Both MSM and pharmacists expressed strong support for in-pharmacy PrEP screening and dissemination. MSM reported that pharmacies were more convenient and accessible compared with physician's offices. However, they also noted that privacy and training of pharmacy staff were important for them to consider being screened for PrEP in a pharmacy. Pharmacists also believed training was important and felt comfortable counseling on HIV prevention for their current patients. CONCLUSION: These data support early evidence that pharmacies are a promising venue to improve PrEP access for MSM. To implement PrEP screening in pharmacies, proper training of pharmacy staff and a designated space to ensure privacy are critical. Future studies should test the feasibility of screening for PrEP in pharmacies for black MSM.