Dataset Information

Impact of pharmacy intervention on influenza vaccination acceptance: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background Vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of influenza. Channels that improve vaccination adherence can play a vital part in improving patient care. This study seeks to inform the design and implementation of pharmacy interventions at scale on improving influenza vaccination rates. Aim of the review The aim of this study was to identify key success factors for effective pharmacy intervention design and implementation to improve vaccination acceptance rates in influenza. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to find literature on influenza vaccinations delivered at pharmacies, pharmacist-delivered influenza vaccinations, or influenza vaccination campaigns originating in the pharmacy setting. A meta-analysis using a random effects model estimated the impact of pharmacy intervention on vaccination rates (assessed as relative risk [RR] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]). Results A total of 1221 studies were found that met the search criteria, of which 12 were selected for the literature review following eligibility screening. A meta-analysis of studies that contained binary total population and vaccination rate data was conducted on 6 studies, including 3182 participants, the vaccination rate was 24% higher in those who used the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who used standard care [RR (95% CI) 1.24 (1.05, 1.47)]. Two separate sensitivity analyses were run for the vaccination rate. In participants aged ≥ 65 years, the vaccination rate was 3% higher in those who received the pharmacy-based intervention compared with those who received standard care; however, this change was not significant [RR (95% CI) 1.03 (0.86, 1.24)]. Additionally, a qualitative review showed that more successful pharmacy-based interventions were those with the more active involvement of pharmacists in routine care. This included regular checkup of vaccine status, proactive conversations and recommendations about vaccination, and pharmacy-based immunization programs, with specific vaccination days. In-pharmacy communication rather than passive information, such as through leaflets and posters was also more effective. Conclusion Pharmacists can play a significant role to improve patient treatment, adherence, and outcomes associated with influenza vaccines. Once pharmacy-based immunization is established, proactive involvement of is key to ensure successful program implementation and results. Expanding access for pharmacists and pharmacy intervention to provide vaccinations may increase vaccination acceptance and could be a valuable intervention in patient care. Additional studies should consider high-risk populations to inform optimal design and implementation strategies.

SUBMITTER: Murray E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8161720 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza is a frequent cause of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Exacerbations are associated with worsening of the airflow obstruction, hospitalisation, reduced quality of life, disease progression, death, and ultimately, substantial healthcare-related costs. Despite longstanding recommendations to vaccinate vulnerable high-risk groups against seasonal influenza, including patients with COPD, vaccination rates remain sub-optimal in this population.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to summarise current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on the immunogenicity, safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with COPD. The selection of relevant articles was based on a three-step selection procedure according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search yielded 650 unique hits of which 48 eligible articles were screened in full-text.ResultsSeventeen articles describing 13 different studies were found to be pertinent to this review. Results of four RCTs and one observational study demonstrate that seasonal influenza vaccination is immunogenic in patients with COPD. Two studies assessed the occurrence of COPD exacerbations 14 days after influenza vaccination and found no evidence of an increased risk of exacerbation. Three RCTs showed no significant difference in the occurrence of systemic effects between groups receiving influenza vaccine or placebo. Six out of seven studies on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness indicated long-term benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination, such as reduced number of exacerbations, reduced hospitalisations and outpatient visits, and decreased all-cause and respiratory mortality.ConclusionsAdditional large and well-designed observational studies would contribute to understanding the impact of disease severity and patient characteristics on the response to influenza vaccination. Overall, the evidence supports a positive benefit-risk ratio for seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with COPD, and supports current vaccination recommendations in this population.

Project description:BackgroundConflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for the following four vaccination groups: current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (?VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random-effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241).ResultsWe identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (?VE?=?25%; 95% CI 14%, 35%) and B (?VE?=?18%; 95% CI 3%, 33%), but not H3N2 (?VE?=?7%; 95% CI -?7%, 21%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (?VE?=?62%; 95% CI 51%, 70%), H3N2 (?VE?=?45%; 95% CI 35%, 53%), and B (?VE?=?64%; 95% CI 57%, 71%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (?VE?=?3%; 95% CI -?8%, 13%), but less protection against influenza H3N2 (?VE?=?-?20%; 95% CI -?36%, -?4%), and B (?VE?=?-?11%; 95% CI -?20%, -?2%).ConclusionsOur results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination because VE for vaccination in the current season only is higher compared to no vaccination in either season for all types/subtypes, and for H1N1 and influenza B, vaccination in both seasons provides better VE than vaccination in the prior season only. Although VE was lower against H3N2 and B for individuals vaccinated in both seasons compared to those vaccinated in the current season only, it should be noted that past vaccination history cannot be altered and this comparison disregards susceptibility to influenza during the prior season among those vaccinated in the current season only. In addition, our results for H3N2 were particularly influenced by the 2014-2015 influenza season and the impact of repeated vaccination for all types/subtypes may vary from season to season. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.

Project description:BackgroundConflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for four vaccination groups, namely current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (∆VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241).ResultsWe identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (∆VE = 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 36%) and B (∆VE = 24%; 95% CI, 7% to 42%), but not H3N2 (∆VE = 10%; 95% CI, -6% to 25%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (∆VE = 61%; 95% CI, 50% to 70%), H3N2 (∆VE = 41%; 95% CI, 33% to 48%), and B (∆VE = 62%; 95% CI, 54% to 68%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (∆VE = 4%; 95% CI, -7% to 15%), H3N2 (∆VE = -12%; 95% CI, -27% to 4%), or B (∆VE = -8%; 95% CI, -17% to 1%).ConclusionsFrom the patient perspective, our results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination. We found no overall evidence that prior season vaccination negatively impacts current season VE. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons in order to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza is a persistent public health problem with a significant burden on patients, employers, and society. A systematic review by Keech and Beardsworth (2008) characterized the burden of influenza/influenza-like illness (ILI) on absenteeism. We conducted a systematic literature review evaluating the impact of influenza/ILI on work productivity among adults as an update to the work of Keech and Beardsworth.MethodsThis systematic review identified studies evaluating the impact of influenza/ILI on absenteeism, presenteeism, or related work productivity measures for employees and employed caregivers based on laboratory confirmation, physician diagnosis, and/or self-reported illness. Eligible studies were in English, French, or German published from 7 March 2007 through 15 February 2022, in PubMed, Embase, or BIOSIS. Two reviewers completed screening and full-text review, with conflicts resolved by a third advisor. Summary data were extracted by two analysts; all records were quality checked by one analyst. Work productivity outcomes were summarized qualitatively, and risk of bias was not evaluated.ResultsA total of 14,387 records were retrieved; 12,245 titles/abstracts were screened and 145 full-text publications were reviewed, of which 63 were included in the qualitative assessment. Studies of self-reported ILI were most frequent (49%), followed by laboratory-confirmed cases (37%) and physician diagnoses (11%). Overall, approximately 20-75% of employees missed work due to illness across study settings and populations. Mean time out of work among ill employees varied widely across study designs and populations, ranging from < 1 to > 10 days, and was often reported to be approximately 2-3 days. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across study designs, populations, and outcomes. Most employees (≈ 60-80%) reported working while experiencing influenza/ILI symptoms. Reporting of costs was sparse and heterogeneous; one study reported annual costs of influenza-related absences equating to $42,851 per 100,000 employee health plan members. Results were partitioned based on the following categories. Among otherwise healthy adults, 1-74% of workers missed ≥1 workday due to influenza/ILI, for a mean [standard deviation (SD)] of 0.5 (1.44) to 5.3 (4.50) days, and 42-89% reported working while ill, for a mean (SD) of 0.3 (0.63) to 4.4 (3.73) days. Among working caregivers, 50-75% missed work to care for children/household members with influenza/ILI, for 1-2 days on average. Similarly, the mean absenteeism among healthcare workers ranged from 0.5 to 3.2 days. Across studies evaluating vaccination status, generally smaller proportions of vaccinated employees missed time from work due to influenza/ILI.ConclusionsThis systematic review summarized the productivity burden of influenza/ILI on the worldwide working-age population. Despite notable heterogeneity in study designs, influenza/ILI case definitions, and productivity outcome measures, this review highlighted the substantial productivity burden that influenza/ILI may have on employees, employers, and society, consistent with the findings of Keech and Beardsworth (2008).

Project description:The importance of health workforce provision has gained significance and is now considered one of the most pressing issues worldwide, across all health professions. Against this background, the objectives of the work presented here were to systematically explore and identify contemporary issues surrounding expansion of the global pharmacy workforce in order to assist the International Pharmaceutical Federation working group on the workforce. International peer and non-peer-reviewed literature published between January 1998 and February 2008 was analysed. Articles were collated by performing searches of appropriate databases and reference lists of relevant articles; in addition, key informants were contacted. Information that met specific quality standards and pertained to the pharmacy workforce was extracted to matrices and assigned an evidence grade. Sixty-nine papers were identified for inclusion (48 peer reviewed and 21 non-peer-reviewed). Evaluation of evidence revealed the global pharmacy workforce to be composed of increasing numbers of females who were working fewer hours; this decreased their overall full-time equivalent contribution to the workforce, compared to male pharmacists. Distribution of pharmacists was uneven with respect to location (urban/rural, less-developed/more-developed countries) and work sector (private/public). Graduates showed a preference for completing pre-registration training near where they studied as an undergraduate; this was of considerable importance to rural areas. Increases in the number of pharmacy student enrollments and pharmacy schools occurred alongside an expansion in the number and roles of pharmacy technicians. Increased international awareness and support existed for the certification, registration and regulation of pharmacy technicians and accreditation of training courses. The most common factors adding to the demand for pharmacists were increased feminization, clinical governance measures, complexity of medication therapy and increased prescriptions. To maintain and expand the future pharmacy workforce, increases in recruitment and retention will be essential, as will decreases in attrition, where possible. However, scaling up the global pharmacy workforce is a complex, multifactorial responsibility that requires coordinated action. Further research by means of prospective and comparative methods, not only surveys, is needed into feminization; decreasing demand for postgraduate training; graduate trends; job satisfaction and the impact of pharmacy technicians; and how effective existing interventions are at expanding the pharmacy workforce. More coordinated monitoring and modelling of the pharmacy workforce worldwide (particularly in developing countries) is required.

Project description:BackgroundDental practitioners and dental students are classified as high-risk exposure to COVID-19 due to the nature of dental treatments, but evidence of their acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccination is still scarce. Hence, this systemic review aims to critically appraise and analyse the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination among dental students and dental practitioners.Materials and methodsThis review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286108) based on PRISMA guidelines. Cross-sectional articles on the dental students' and dental practitioners' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine published between March 2020 to October 2021 were searched in eight online databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to analyse the risk of bias (RoB) of each article, whereas the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendation tool was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Data were analysed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model based on a single-arm approach.ResultsTen studies were included of which three studies focused on dental students and seven studies focused on dental practitioners. Four studies were deemed to exhibit moderate RoB and the remaining showed low RoB. All the studies demonstrated Level 3 evidence. Single-arm meta-analysis revealed that dental practitioners had a high level of vaccination acceptance (81.1%) than dental students (60.5%). A substantial data heterogeneity was observed with the overall I2 ranging from 73.65% and 96.86%. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that dental practitioners from the Middle East and high-income countries showed greater (p < 0.05) acceptance levels, while meta-regression showed that the sample size of each study had no bearing on the degree of data heterogeneity.ConclusionsDespite the high degree of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among dental practitioners, dental students still demonstrated poor acceptance. These findings highlighted that evidence-based planning with effective approaches is warranted to enhance the knowledge and eradicate vaccination hesitancy, particularly among dental students.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent decades, there has been an interest in clinical pharmacy practice in Türkiye with emerging studies in this area. Despite the recent emergence of diverse pharmacy practice studies in Türkiye, a comprehensive assessment of overall typology of studies and impact has not been conducted thus far.ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to document and assess pharmaceutical policy and practice literature published within the last 5 years in Türkiye. The other aim is to summarise the expected impact of published studies on policy and practice research.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines described in the PRISMA Statement. A comprehensive search approach, incorporating Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) queries and free-text terms was employed to locate pertinent literature related to pharmacy practice and policy in Türkiye. The search covered the period from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2024, and involved electronic databases including PubMed, Medline Ovid, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, PlosOne, and BMC.ResultsIn the final grouping, 73 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. Among the quantitative studies, majority studies were cross-sectional survey studies. Through the rigorous thematic content analysis seven research domains were developed from the selected literature: drug utilisation and rational drug use, the emerging role of pharmacist, access to medicines and generic medicines, community pharmacy practice, pharmacovigilance/adverse drug reactions, and pharmacoeconomic studies.ConclusionsThe pharmacist role is evolving; however, several challenges remain in fully realising the potential of pharmacists. These include regulatory barriers, limited public awareness of pharmacists' expanded roles, workforce capacity issues, and the need for ongoing professional development and training. Research studies are needed in the areas of generic prescribing, medicine adherence, intervention studies in community and hospital pharmacy practice, and on pharmacoeconomics and pharmacovigilance.

Dataset Information

Impact of pharmacy intervention on influenza vaccination acceptance: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets