Implementation of an adult life-course vaccine review service, VaxCheck, in community pharmacy: A qualitative analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are well placed to identify and vaccinate unimmunized or under-immunized individuals who can put themselves and communities at risk of preventable disease. We designed and tested VaxCheck, a novel life-course vaccine review service that can be used to raise awareness and guide personal vaccination action plans, in community pharmacies in Ontario, Canada. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of community pharmacists and staff directly involved with providing the VaxCheck service as part of initial testing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with pharmacy staff from 9 pharmacies who participated in the study. Interviews were conducted at baseline and following each of 3 Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement cycles. Activities undertaken to perform VaxCheck were assessed. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify dominant themes and subthemes. Activities and descriptive codes were then correlated to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Twenty-six interviews were conducted. Pharmacy staff described VaxCheck activities as spanning 3 stages: (1) Promotion/offering of VaxCheck, (2) Completing the VaxCheck, and (3) Enacting recommendations and follow-up. VaxCheck activities were compatible with workflow related to delivery of other vaccines and medication reviews. Thematic analysis found 3 considerations guided VaxCheck adoption: (1) Aligning VaxCheck with workflow through flexible integration, (2) Enabling patient-oriented vaccination services, and (3) Contributing to community healthcare provision. Data aligned with all CFIR domains with strengths noted in constructs from the "Innovation characteristics" and "Individuals" domains. Barriers to implementation were identified in "Inner setting," "Outer setting," and "Process" domains, such as pharmacy workflow capacity, patient knowledge about vaccination, availability of vaccine records, and interactions with other healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists found VaxCheck to be a valuable, accessible service that was well-received by patients and supported adult vaccination reviews and individualized recommendations. VaxCheck was compatible with pharmacy workflow but needed additional resources for sustainability and promotion with stakeholders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».