Engaging Community Pharmacy to Improve Seasonal Vaccination in Patients Living with Vasculitis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives Vasculitis refers to a group of autoimmune disorders causing inflammatory damage of blood vessels leading to end organ damage. Treating these conditions often requires therapeutic immunosuppression. This immunosuppression is associated with an increased risk of infection, a leading cause of mortality in vasculitis.[1] Vaccinations reduce the risk of certain infections but are underutilized.[2] Novel strategies to promote patient vaccination are crucial to reduce infections. In this study, we implemented a multidisciplinary approach involving community pharmacies to improve the rate of seasonal vaccination. Methods 103 patients > age 18 living with vasculitis seen in 1 tertiary center in Calgary, Alberta were recruited. Their vaccination status against COVID-19 and influenza was documented to establish a baseline. As part of a multidisciplinary vaccine promotion approach, we provided these patients with education on the importance of vaccination and contacted their pharmacy of choice to arrange vaccination if the patient was not up to date. The vaccination status of patients was then reviewed at the 16-month time point to determine subsequent vaccination rate. Results At baseline 15% of patients had received their seasonal influenza vaccination and 39% of patients had received >3 mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. Following the multidisciplinary vaccine promotion intervention, the rates of vaccination for the 2023-2024 season increased to 49% for influenza vaccination and 65% for receiving >3 mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Compared to the provincial rates for the same time period, our intervention resulted in 2x higher influenza vaccination rates and nearly 3x higher COVID-19 vaccination rates (Image 1). Additionally, a vaccine hesitancy survey was provided to better understand hesitant patient behavior. 47 patients agreed to provide their reasoning for not completing their vaccination series. Timing (making time, remembering to go) was the major obstacle noted by 31/47 (66%) while mistrust of vaccines (lack of belief in efficacy, potential to cause harm) was expressed by 19% (9/47). Of these patients 83% (39/47) stated they would receive vaccination on-site at the time of their next rheumatology appointment if it were offered by a health professional. Image 1: Summary of Findings Conclusion Engaging patients’ community pharmacy to promote and administer seasonal vaccination was an effective preventative care initiative. There were improved vaccination rates for influenza and COVID-19 and our final vaccination rates were superior to provincial rates over the same time period. As a QI initiative, this study highlights an effective multidisciplinary approach to improving patient vaccination. Such approaches are especially salient and increasing burden on rheumatologists to ensure risk reduction in multiple domains. [1.] King C. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2018;32(1):125-36. [2.] Furer V. RMD Open 2019;5(2):e001041. Practice Reflection Award
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».