Routine immunization of adults by pharmacists: Attitudes and beliefs of the Canadian public and health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccine coverage among adults for recommended vaccines is generally low. In Canada and the US, pharmacists are increasingly becoming involved in the administration of vaccines to adults. This study measured the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of Canadian adults and health care providers regarding pharmacists as immunizers. Geographically representative samples of Canadian adults (n = 4023) and health care providers (n = 1167) were surveyed, and 8 focus groups each were conducted nationwide with adults and health care providers. Provision of vaccines by pharmacists was supported by 64.6% of the public, 82.3% of pharmacists, 57.4% of nurses, and 38.9% of physicians; 45.7% of physicians opposed pharmacist-delivered vaccination. Pharmacists were considered a trusted source of vaccination information by 75.0% of the public, exceeding public health officials (68.3%) and exceeded only by doctors and nurses (89.2%). Public concerns about vaccination in pharmacies centered on safety (management of adverse events), record keeping (ensuring their family physician was informed), and cost (should be no more expensive than vaccination at public health or physicians' offices). Concerns about the logistics of vaccination delivery were expressed more frequently in regions where pharmacists were not yet immunizing than in jurisdictions with existing pharmacist vaccination programs. These results suggest that the expansion of pharmacists' scope of practice to include delivery of adult vaccinations is generally accepted by Canadian health care providers and the public. Acceptance of this expanded scope of pharmacist practice may contribute to improvements in vaccine coverage rates by improving vaccine accessibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".