MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118298847 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18020599

Readiness and Willingness to Provide Immunization Services after Pilot Vaccination Training: A Survey among Community Pharmacists Trained and Not Trained in Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland

2021· article· en· W3118298847 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Merks, Urszula Religioni, Krzysztof Bilmin, Jędrzej Lewicki, Marta Jakubowska, Anna Waksmundzka-Walczuk, Aleksandra Czerw, Agnieszka Barańska, Joanna Bogusz, Katarzyna Plagens-Rotman, Dariusz Świetlik, Ewelina Drelich, Damian Świeczkowski, Jane Lambert, Miłosz Jaguszewski, Grzegorz Juszczyk, Bander Balkhi, Régis Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersUniwersytet WarszawskiWarszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny
KeywordsVaccinationPharmacyMedicineImmunizationPandemicPharmacistFamily medicineHealth carePopulationNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthImmunologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Immunization rates among the adult population in Poland are below desired targets, urging the need to expand this service in the community. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ultimate goals for limiting the spread of the infection are vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Pharmaceutical companies are in a race for the fastest possible way to deliver vaccines. Community pharmacists in Poland are recognised as an accessible yet underutilised group of medical professionals. Therefore, involving pharmacists in vaccinations may have beneficial results for the healthcare system. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to assess the readiness and willingness of community pharmacists following the Pharmacist Without Borders project who had either been trained or not in providing immunization services, and to identify the factors that may support the implementation of such services in Poland. Methods: This study was conducted among pharmacists between February and August 2020 in Poland. A survey was developed to determine their readiness to provide vaccination services in their pharmacies, to recognise any barriers to vaccinations, as well as the factors necessary to implement vaccination services in Polish pharmacies. Results: A total of 1777 pharmacists participated in the study, comprising 127 (7.1%) pharmacists trained in vaccinations during the Pharmacists Without Borders project and 1650 (92.9%) pharmacists not participating in the workshops. Pharmacists participating in the workshops more often indicated that providing vaccinations in community pharmacies would improve the overall vaccination rate (p = 0.0001), and that pharmacists could play an important role in advertising and promoting vaccinations (p = 0.0001). For the pharmacists not participating in the workshops, they indicated to a much greater extent possible barriers affecting the readiness to provide vaccinations in pharmacies. They most often pointed out that vaccination services would result in a significant workload increase (p = 0.0001), that pharmacies were not adapted to immunization, and that there were not enough training courses for pharmacists (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: The pharmacists working in community pharmacies indicated many advantages of vaccinations in pharmacies. This study identified barriers to the introduction of vaccinations and factors necessary to implement these services in pharmacies. The pharmacists trained during the immunization programme of the Pharmacists Without Borders project showed a greater readiness to provide immunization services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207