-
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and... 2024Under-utilisation of immunisation services remains a public health challenge. Pharmacists act as facilitators and increasingly as immunisers, yet relatively little...
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.
PubMed: 38205195
DOI: 10.1080/20523211.2023.2285955 -
Acta Bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis Apr 2020To investigate actual knowledge of official recommendations towards seasonal influenza (SID), and Tetanus-diphtheria acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
To investigate actual knowledge of official recommendations towards seasonal influenza (SID), and Tetanus-diphtheria acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccines in obstetrics/gynecologists (OBGYN).
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) among case controls, cross-sectional studies, either questionnaire or laboratory exams based. Results. A total of 6 studies met inclusion criteria, including 1323 OBGYN from 5 different countries. Overall, around 99% of sampled professionals were aware that official recommendations towards SID in pregnancy do exist, compared to 92% for Tdap, with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 95%, p < 0.001). Concerns about vaccine safety was reported by 10% of respondents for Tdap, and by 6.0% for SID, but again available studies were substantially heterogenous (I2 = 86.7% and 86.0%, p < 0.001). Eventually, 93% of respondents actively recommended SID in pregnancy, compared to 88% for Tdap (I2 98.8% and I2 95.9%, respectively p < 0.001). The evidence of significant publication bias was initially subjectively identified from the funnel plot, and then objectively confirmed through the regression test for all analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest an appropriated understanding of official recommendation among sampled OBGYN, with high shares of professionals actively promoting vaccination practices among their patients. Despite the high heterogeneity and the significant publication bias we identified, our results also hint towards extensive knowledge gaps of OBGYN, and particularly regarding unmotivated concerns about vaccine safety. As a consequence, appropriate information and formation campaigns should be appropriately tailored.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis Vaccines; Female; Gynecology; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Obstetrics; Pregnancy; Vaccination
PubMed: 32275268
DOI: 10.23750/abm.v91i3-S.9442 -
BMJ Global Health 2019We have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in...
BACKGROUND
We have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates. While informative, that report did not concretely specify whether different types of restriction are associated with differential effectiveness in reducing resistance. We undertook a sub-analysis of the systematic review to address this question.
METHODS
We created a classification scheme of different approaches to antibiotic restriction: (1) complete restriction; (2) single antibiotic-class restriction; (3) single antibiotic restriction; (4) all non-therapeutic use restriction; (5) growth promoter and prophylaxis restriction; (6) growth promoter restriction and (7) other/undetermined. All studies in the original systematic review that were amenable to meta-analysis were included into this substudy and coded by intervention type. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, stratified by intervention type.
RESULTS
A total of 127 studies were included. The most frequently studied intervention type was complete restriction (n=51), followed by restriction of non-therapeutic (n=33) and growth promoter (n=19) indications. None examined growth promoter and prophylaxis restrictions together. Three and seven studies examined single antibiotic-class and single antibiotic restrictions, respectively; these two intervention types were not significantly associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance. Though complete restrictions were associated with a 15% reduction in antibiotic resistance, less prohibitive approaches also demonstrated reduction in antibiotic resistance of 9%-30%.
CONCLUSION
Broad interventions that restrict global antibiotic use appear to be more effective in reducing antibiotic resistance compared with restrictions that narrowly target one specific antibiotic or antibiotic class. Importantly, interventions that allow for therapeutic antibiotic use appear similarly effective compared with those that restrict all uses of antibiotics, suggesting that complete bans are not necessary. These findings directly inform the creation of specific policies to restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals.
PubMed: 31543995
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001710 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Mar 2020Children who had received MMR as the most recent vaccine had a pooled 35% (95%CI: 12-53%) lower risk for hospitalization due to any infectious disease, compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Non-specific effects of MMR vaccines on infectious disease related hospitalizations during the second year of life in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Children who had received MMR as the most recent vaccine had a pooled 35% (95%CI: 12-53%) lower risk for hospitalization due to any infectious disease, compared to children who had received DTaP as the most recent vaccine (three studies, 1,919,192 children). The effect was stronger for respiratory tract infections than for gastrointestinal infections. Two studies investigated MMR alone, compared to concurrent administration of MMR and DTaP vaccines. Here, the pooled estimate for reduction in risk of hospitalization for any infectious disease was smaller and not significant (15%; 95%CI: -9% to 34%). Risk of bias was serious to critical in all studies. Moreover, two of the five studies demonstrated a significantly reduced risk for a control outcome (hospitalization for injuries), strongly indicating healthy vaccinee bias or residual confounding. The available evidence is insufficient to support a change in current vaccination schedules.
Topics: Child; Communicable Diseases; Developed Countries; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
PubMed: 31625797
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1663119