Implementation of an adult life-course vaccine review service, VaxCheck, in community pharmacy: A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are well placed to identify and vaccinate unimmunized or under-immunized individuals who can put themselves and communities at risk of preventable disease. We designed and tested VaxCheck, a novel life-course vaccine review service that can be used to raise awareness and guide personal vaccination action plans, in community pharmacies in Ontario, Canada. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of community pharmacists and staff directly involved with providing the VaxCheck service as part of initial testing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with pharmacy staff from 9 pharmacies who participated in the study. Interviews were conducted at baseline and following each of 3 Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement cycles. Activities undertaken to perform VaxCheck were assessed. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify dominant themes and subthemes. Activities and descriptive codes were then correlated to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Twenty-six interviews were conducted. Pharmacy staff described VaxCheck activities as spanning 3 stages: (1) Promotion/offering of VaxCheck, (2) Completing the VaxCheck, and (3) Enacting recommendations and follow-up. VaxCheck activities were compatible with workflow related to delivery of other vaccines and medication reviews. Thematic analysis found 3 considerations guided VaxCheck adoption: (1) Aligning VaxCheck with workflow through flexible integration, (2) Enabling patient-oriented vaccination services, and (3) Contributing to community healthcare provision. Data aligned with all CFIR domains with strengths noted in constructs from the "Innovation characteristics" and "Individuals" domains. Barriers to implementation were identified in "Inner setting," "Outer setting," and "Process" domains, such as pharmacy workflow capacity, patient knowledge about vaccination, availability of vaccine records, and interactions with other healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists found VaxCheck to be a valuable, accessible service that was well-received by patients and supported adult vaccination reviews and individualized recommendations. VaxCheck was compatible with pharmacy workflow but needed additional resources for sustainability and promotion with stakeholders.
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 | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".