Pharmacy-based immunization in France: visions of pharmacist, of physician and of patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved vaccination rates of adults has become worldwide a public health issue. In this context, the pharmacy-based adult vaccinations practice has been developed in Portugal, the UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, Canada and the United States. To date, in France, the subject is under debate. In this context, a cross-sectional study was initiated to assess knowledge about immunization and commitment of 78 community pharmacists (41.1 +/- 13.2 years old) to the vaccination monitoring and / or the administration of vaccines at the pharmacy. Concurrently, an opinion survey has raised the vision of 78 physicians (47.1 +/- 11.9 years old) and 112 patients (43.4 +/- 15.7 years old) living in the same geographical area. Data collection was performed using standardized questionnaires. Among the pharmacists, only 48.7% (38/78) are ready to administrate vaccines, and only after specific training and against remuneration. However, 51.3% (40/78) are willing to organize their pharmacy to allow nurses to achieve immunization of patients in the pharmacy. The majority of physicians consider that vaccination is strictly a medical procedure. Only 14.1% (11/78) consider that the pharmacist may be able to practice it, and 33.3% (26/78) consider that vaccination in the pharmacy by a nurse is possible. For patients interviewed, information about vaccination is issued mainly by their physicians (83.8% (93/111)) and to a lesser extent by their pharmacists (21.6% (24/111)). However, for 53.6% (60/112), the pharmacist can be the manager of the electronic vaccination record and for 63.4% (71/112) the pharmacist can administrate the vaccines. To improve vaccination rates in France, the involvement of pharmacists in promoting the vaccination, in monitoring the vaccination record of patients and in administrating the vaccine is an option, especially from the point-of-view of patients. Reluctance still exist among pharmacists, and an opposition is also visible among the physicians interviewed. Key messages French community pharmacists are ready to promote vaccination and to monitore the vaccination record of patients, but not to administrate the vaccines. Pharmacy-based vaccination is well accepted by patients
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".