药剂师干预对免疫接种率的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2023-12-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955
Mohamad Hafiz Abd Rahim, Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom, Mohd Shah Rezan Hamzah, Siti Hawa Azman, Zahirah Zaharuddin, Mathumalar Loganathan Fahrni
{"title":"药剂师干预对免疫接种率的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohamad Hafiz Abd Rahim, Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom, Mohd Shah Rezan Hamzah, Siti Hawa Azman, Zahirah Zaharuddin, Mathumalar Loganathan Fahrni","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Under-utilisation of immunisation services remains a public health challenge. Pharmacists act as facilitators and increasingly as immunisers, yet relatively little robust evidence exists of the impact elicited on patient health outcome and vaccination uptake.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the influence of pharmacist interventions on public vaccination rate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2023 to retrieve non- and randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if no comparator group to pharmacist involvement was reported. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses using random-effect models, were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs and 15 non-RCTs, encompassing influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and tetanus-diphtheria and pertussis vaccine types, and administered in diverse settings including community pharmacies, were included. Pooled effect sizes revealed that, as compared to usual care, pharmacists, regardless of their intervention, improved the overall immunisation uptake by up to 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)] while immunisation frequency doubled when pharmacists acted specifically as advocators [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the evidence for pharmacist immunisers was mixed, their contribution to immunisation programmes boosted public vaccination rate. Pharmacists demonstrated leadership and acquired indispensable advocator roles in the community and hospital settings. Future research could explore the depth of engagement and hence the extent of influence on immunisation uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10775721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of pharmacist interventions on immunisation uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamad Hafiz Abd Rahim, Siti Hajar Mahamad Dom, Mohd Shah Rezan Hamzah, Siti Hawa Azman, Zahirah Zaharuddin, Mathumalar Loganathan Fahrni\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Under-utilisation of immunisation services remains a public health challenge. Pharmacists act as facilitators and increasingly as immunisers, yet relatively little robust evidence exists of the impact elicited on patient health outcome and vaccination uptake.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the influence of pharmacist interventions on public vaccination rate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2023 to retrieve non- and randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if no comparator group to pharmacist involvement was reported. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses using random-effect models, were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four RCTs and 15 non-RCTs, encompassing influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and tetanus-diphtheria and pertussis vaccine types, and administered in diverse settings including community pharmacies, were included. Pooled effect sizes revealed that, as compared to usual care, pharmacists, regardless of their intervention, improved the overall immunisation uptake by up to 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)] while immunisation frequency doubled when pharmacists acted specifically as advocators [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the evidence for pharmacist immunisers was mixed, their contribution to immunisation programmes boosted public vaccination rate. Pharmacists demonstrated leadership and acquired indispensable advocator roles in the community and hospital settings. Future research could explore the depth of engagement and hence the extent of influence on immunisation uptake.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10775721/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:免疫接种服务利用不足仍是公共卫生面临的一项挑战。药剂师充当着促进者的角色,而且越来越多地充当着免疫接种者的角色,但有关药剂师对患者健康结果和疫苗接种率的影响的有力证据却相对较少:评估药剂师干预对公众疫苗接种率的影响:方法:检索从开始到 2023 年 4 月的 SCOPUS、PubMed 和 Web of Science,检索非随机对照临床试验 (RCT)。如果没有报告药剂师参与的比较组,则排除研究。研究人员进行了数据提取、偏倚风险评估,并使用随机效应模型进行了荟萃分析:共纳入了 4 项研究性试验和 15 项非研究性试验,涉及流感、肺炎球菌、带状疱疹、破伤风-白喉和百日咳疫苗类型,接种地点包括社区药房。汇总效应大小显示,与常规护理相比,药剂师无论采取哪种干预措施,都能将总体免疫接种率提高 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)],而当药剂师专门作为倡导者时,免疫接种频率会翻倍 [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)]:虽然药剂师免疫接种的证据不一,但他们对免疫接种计划的贡献提高了公共疫苗接种率。药剂师在社区和医院环境中发挥了领导作用,并获得了不可或缺的倡导者角色。未来的研究可以探讨药剂师参与的深度,以及他们对免疫接种率的影响程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impact of pharmacist interventions on immunisation uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Under-utilisation of immunisation services remains a public health challenge. Pharmacists act as facilitators and increasingly as immunisers, yet relatively little robust evidence exists of the impact elicited on patient health outcome and vaccination uptake.

Objective: To evaluate the influence of pharmacist interventions on public vaccination rate.

Methods: SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2023 to retrieve non- and randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if no comparator group to pharmacist involvement was reported. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses using random-effect models, were performed.

Results: Four RCTs and 15 non-RCTs, encompassing influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and tetanus-diphtheria and pertussis vaccine types, and administered in diverse settings including community pharmacies, were included. Pooled effect sizes revealed that, as compared to usual care, pharmacists, regardless of their intervention, improved the overall immunisation uptake by up to 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)] while immunisation frequency doubled when pharmacists acted specifically as advocators [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)].

Conclusion: While the evidence for pharmacist immunisers was mixed, their contribution to immunisation programmes boosted public vaccination rate. Pharmacists demonstrated leadership and acquired indispensable advocator roles in the community and hospital settings. Future research could explore the depth of engagement and hence the extent of influence on immunisation uptake.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association of anxiolytic drugs with Torsade de Pointes: a pharmacovigilance study of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. Factors influencing healthcare providers' behaviours in deprescribing: a cross-sectional study. Good manufacturing practice inspections conducted by Tanzania medicines and medical devices authority: a comparative study of two fiscal years from 2018 to 2020. Unused medicine take-back programmes: a systematic review. Community pharmacy & primary care integration: qualitative study on stakeholders' opinions and interventions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1