23. Did You Pneu?: Impact of an Adult Pneumococcal Immunization Campaign Across Independent Community Pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Canada’s pneumococcal immunization goal for adults 65 years and older aims to achieve 80% coverage, yet uptake is only 58% in this population. Barriers include lack of awareness and lack of recommendations by healthcare providers. A pneumococcal immunization campaign was designed to address barriers and increase vaccine uptake from independent community pharmacies. Methods A “Did You Pneu?” pneumococcal immunization campaign was developed by a pharmacist at the head office of an independent community pharmacy banner. The campaign consisted of pharmacist educational materials, in-pharmacy marketing materials, and pharmacy operational supports (Figure 1). In November 2018, a month-long in-pharmacy campaign was carried out across the banner. Feedback collected from pharmacists via telephone interviews was used to inform updates to campaign materials for the November 2019 campaign. A convenience sample of ten independent community pharmacies located across Ontario was selected for a retrospective observational analysis of pneumococcal vaccine purchases from January 2017 to December 2019. Figure 1. “Did You Pneu?” campaign toolkit showing pharmacist educational materials, in-pharmacy marketing materials, and pharmacy operational supports developed and distributed across a banner of independent community pharmacies as part of an adult pneumococcal immunization campaign. Results Analysis of ten independent community pharmacies revealed an increase in the total number of pneumococcal vaccines purchased in November in years a campaign took place compared to baseline. The total number of pneumococcal vaccines purchased in November increased 23% during the first campaign and another 213% during the second campaign (13 vs. 16 vs. 50 vaccines purchased in November 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively). Increased vaccine uptake was also observed in months subsequent to the in-pharmacy campaign. Analysis of ten independent community pharmacies revealed a 47% increase in the mean number of pneumococcal vaccines purchased per month by the banner (8.8 mean number of pneumococcal vaccines purchased per month twelve months pre-implementation vs. 12.9 twelve months post-implementation). Conclusion A comprehensive pneumococcal adult immunization campaign implemented across a banner of independent community pharmacies led to immediate and sustained increases in vaccine uptake. As pharmacists have a role in promoting adult pneumococcal immunizations, advocacy efforts should be undertaken to include pharmacists in publicly funded immunization programs. Disclosures Tiana Tilli, PharmD, RPh, ACPR, Pfizer Canada Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".