Dataset Information

Pharmacists-physicians collaborative intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy and resistance: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Given their negative influence on community health, vaccine hesitancy and resistance are emerging challenges that require healthcare intervention. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact of physician-pharmacist collaborative health coaching on rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

After an initial assessment of rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine was conducted, hesitant and resistant participants were approached, recruited, and randomized into an active and control group. Pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching intervention was delivered to active group subjects over two months through Facebook live sessions. The outcome measures were assessed in both groups before coaching, directly after coaching, and a month after coaching.

Results

The proportions of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine among subjects in the active group were significantly reduced from 64.3% and 35.7% before coaching to 20.1% and 7.8% directly after coaching, respectively. These proportions were further reduced to 11.1% and 3.3% a month after coaching, respectively. Furthermore, the mean scores for knowledge on, and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine were significantly increased from 4.6 ± 1.8 and 4.1 ± 1.7 before coaching to 7.5 ± 3.1 and 8.9 ± 3.8 directly after coaching, respectively. However, the change in mean score of beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines among active group subjects was not significant.

Conclusion

High rates of hesitancy and resistance for a COVID-19 vaccine were found in Jordan. These rates can be significantly reduced through online pharmacists-physicians collaborative coaching, which can also improve knowledge of and attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines.

SUBMITTER: Abdel-Qader DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8712432 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists.MethodsThe DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool's reliability and content validity.ResultsThree hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors "Activation for collaborative professional practice," the "Integration in collaborative professional practice," and the "Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice." The tool demonstrated an adequate fit (X2/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.924).ConclusionsThe Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.

Project description:BackgroundBenzodiazepine use by elderly patients is associated with adverse outcomes including increased risk of falls and fractures, motor vehicle accidents and cognitive impairment. Recent studies suggest that individualized feedback and education to physicians may improve drug prescribing. In this study, we evaluated an intervention to address the inappropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines for elderly patients.MethodsWe identified 1624 primary care physicians who wrote at least 10 prescriptions for the target drugs in a 2-month period and randomly assigned these physicians to the intervention group or the control group. We obtained data from the Ontario Drug Benefit claims database, which covers all Ontario residents aged 65 years and over for drugs selected from a minimally restrictive formulary. Every 2 months for 6 months, confidential profiles of benzodiazepine prescription use coupled with evidence-based educational bulletins were mailed to the intervention group. The control group received feedback and educational bulletins about first-line antihypertension drug prescribing for elderly patients. Our main outcome measures were reductions in the proportion of each physician's total benzodiazepine prescriptions for long-acting agents, combinations of benzodiazepines with other psychoactive medications (including other benzodiazepines) and long-term benzodiazepine therapy.ResultsAfter randomization, 168 physicians agreed to be in the intervention group and 206 in the control group. Their demographic and prescribing characteristics were similar. Although the proportion of long-acting benzodiazepine prescriptions decreased by 0.7% in the intervention group between the baseline period and the end of the intervention period (from 20.3%, or a mean of 29.5 prescriptions, to 19.6%, or a mean of 27.7 prescriptions) and increased by 1.1% in the control group (from 19.8%, or a mean of 26.4 prescriptions, to 20.9%, or a mean of 27.7 prescriptions) (p = 0.036), this difference was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference over the study period in either combination prescribing of benzodiazepines or in prescriptions for long-term benzodiazepine therapy.InterpretationWe did not find that a program of confidential feedback and educational material offered to Ontario primary care physicians had a clinically significant impact on their benzodiazepine prescribing.

Project description:ContextPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), or both have higher medical complication rates and higher health care costs, suggesting that more effective care management of psychiatric and medical disease control might also reduce medical service use and enhance quality of life.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative treatment program (TEAMcare) compared with usual primary care (UC) in outpatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.DesignRandomized controlled trial of a systematic care management program aimed at improving depression scores and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.SettingFourteen primary care clinics of an integrated health care system.PatientsPopulation-based screening identified 214 adults with depressive disorder and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.InterventionPhysician-supervised nurses collaborated with primary care physicians to provide treatment of multiple disease risk factors.Main outcome measuresBlinded assessments evaluated depressive symptoms, SBP, and HbA(1c) at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Fasting LDL-C concentration was assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. Health plan accounting records were used to assess medical service costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed using a previously developed regression model based on intervention vs UC differences in HbA(1c), LDL-C, and SBP levels over 24 months.ResultsOver 24 months, compared with UC controls, intervention patients had a mean of 114 (95% CI, 79 to 149) additional depression-free days and an estimated 0.335 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.85) additional QALYs. Intervention patients also had lower mean outpatient health costs of $594 per patient (95% CI, -$3241 to $2053) relative to UC patients.ConclusionsFor adults with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, CHD, or both, a systematic intervention program aimed at improving depression scores and HbA(1c), SBP, and LDL-C levels seemed to be a high-value program that for no or modest additional cost markedly improved QALYs.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00468676

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians work in a highly demanding work setting where ongoing changes affect their work and challenge their employability (ie, their ability and willingness to continue working). In this high-pressure environment, physicians could benefit from proactively managing or crafting their careers; however, they tend not to show this behavior. The new concept of career crafting concerns proactively making choices and adapting behavior regarding both short-term job design (ie, job crafting) as well as longer-term career development (ie, career self-management). However, so far, no intervention studies have aimed at enhancing career crafting behavior among physicians. Given that proactive work and career behavior have been shown to be related to favorable outcomes, we designed an intervention to support career crafting behavior and employability of physicians.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to describe (1) the development and (2) the design of the evaluation of a randomized controlled career crafting intervention to increase job crafting, career self-management, and employability.MethodsA randomized controlled intervention study was designed for 141 physicians in two Dutch hospitals. The study was designed and will be evaluated based on parts of the intervention mapping protocol. First, needs of physicians were assessed through 40 interviews held with physicians and managers. This pointed to a need to support physicians in becoming more proactive regarding their careers as well as in building awareness of proactive behaviors in order to craft their current work situation. Based on this, a training program was developed in line with their needs. A number of theoretical methods and practical applications were selected as the building blocks of the training. Next, participants were randomly assigned to either the waitlist-control group (ie, received no training) or the intervention group. The intervention group participated in a 4-hour training session and worked on four self-set goals. Then, a coaching conversation took place over the phone. Digital questionnaires distributed before and 8 weeks after the intervention assessed changes in job crafting, career self-management, employability, and changes in the following additional variables: job satisfaction, career satisfaction, work-home interference, work ability, and performance. In addition, a process evaluation was conducted to examine factors that may have promoted or hindered the effectiveness of the intervention.ResultsData collection was completed in March 2020. Evaluation of outcomes and the research process started in April 2020. Study results were submitted for publication in September 2020.ConclusionsThis study protocol gives insight into the systematic development and design of a career crafting training intervention that is aimed to enhance job crafting, career self-management, and employability. This study will provide valuable information to physicians, managers, policy makers, and other researchers that aim to enhance career crafting.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/18432.