Pharmacy-based sexual health services are associated with high patient acceptability in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Sexual health services need to be accessible and acceptable to people seeking testing and prevention services, especially for priority populations and for those who experience stigma and discrimination. Pharmacy-based sexual health service (PbSHS) models are being developed, evaluated, and scaled with the overall goal to improve access to and equity for sexual health care for people living in Canada. We report on participant acceptability of PbSHS with two of these models. Approach: PbSHS models are developed through ongoing collaboration with researchers, pharmacists and other healthcare providers, public health decision makers, peer associates, and other community partners. In particular, peer associates and community partner team members have been involved since model inception, informing methods and providing meaning to findings from their diverse perspectives.Studies offering pharmacist testing for sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections (STBBIs, the APPROACH 2.0 study) and pharmacist prescribing for preventative therapy for HIV (HIV PrEP, the PrEP-Rx study) were conducted in Alberta (APPROACH), Newfoundland and Labrador (APPROACH), and Nova Scotia (APPROACH and PrEP-Rx).Participants in the APPROACH study chose to receive point-of-care and/or dried bloodspot testing for HIV, hepatitis C and/or syphilis. Pharmacists provided pre- and post-test counselling, and linkage to care for individuals with reactive screening test results. In the PrEP-Rx study, pharmacists assessed participants for eligibility, prescribed PrEP medication, and provided ongoing monitoring for HIV PrEP for a 6-month period. Participants completed voluntary surveys in both studies to provide feedback about their testing experience.Survey items for both studies were based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to assess domains of Affective Attitude (AA), Burden (B), Ethicality (E), Intervention Coherence (IC), Opportunity Costs (OC), Perceived Effectiveness (PE), and Self-efficacy (SE). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze, and average ratings for each domain were reported to characterize the level of acceptability. All responses were included in this analysis. Results: Based on 350 participant records from the APPROACH study and 9 from the PrEP-Rx study, participants reported very high acceptability ratings of the services they received from pharmacists. In APPROACH, high acceptability ratings (90%) were observed in domains AA, E, PE and SE. In PrEP-Rx, high acceptability ratings (90%) were observed for AA, IC, PE and SE. In both studies, OC received the lowest scores, reflecting discordant views on willingness to pay for testing and prevention services at the pharmacy.In both studies, strong positive ratings were expressed around comfort with pharmacist encounters for sexual health services (APPROACH: 97%, PrEP-Rx: 99%), accessibility of pharmacy (APPROACH: 95%, PrEP-Rx: 98%), belief that STBBI testing and HIV PrEP prescribing should always be available in pharmacies (APPROACH: 9%, PrEP-Rx: 99%) and lack of stigma/discrimination faced at the pharmacy (APPROACH: 92%, PrEP-Rx: 96%). Ninety-six percent felt that the pharmacist did a good job administering the test and was qualified to perform and interpret the tests in APPROACH. Ninety-nine percent felt they understood the process of obtaining PrEP from the pharmacist in PrEP-Rx. Implication: Pharmacy-based, community-informed sexual health services were felt to be highly acceptable among participants. Importantly, services were felt to be accessible, participants did not perceive stigma or discrimination, and they felt comfortable receiving sexual health services through the pharmacy. This evidence can be used to inform scale-up and sustainability of pharmacy-based sexual health services models. Ways to provide these services at no cost to patients may improve equity and access to sexual health care for Canadians.
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 | 0,004 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».