Vaccine promotion strategies in community pharmacy addressing vulnerable populations: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Social determinants of health are drivers of vaccine inequity and lead to higher risks of complications from infectious diseases in under vaccinated communities. In many countries, pharmacists have gained the rights to prescribe and administer vaccines, which contributes to improving vaccination rates. However, little is known on how they define and target vulnerable communities. Objective The purpose of this study is to describe how vulnerable communities are targeted in community pharmacies. Methods We performed a systematic search of the Embase and MEDLINE database in August 2021 inspired by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols (PRISMA ScR). Articles in English, French or Spanish addressing any vaccine in a community pharmacy context and that target a population defined as vulnerable were screened for inclusion. Results A total of 1039 articles were identified through the initial search, and 63 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the literature originated from North America (n = 54, 86%) and addressed influenza (n = 29, 46%), pneumococcal (n = 14, 22%), herpes zoster (n = 14, 22%) or human papilloma virus vaccination (n = 14, 22%). Lifecycle vulnerabilities (n = 48, 76%) such as age and pregnancy were most often used to target vulnerable patients followed by clinical factors (n = 18, 29%), socio-economical determinants (n = 16, 25%) and geographical vulnerabilities (n = 7, 11%). The most frequently listed strategy was providing a strong recommendation for vaccination, promotional posters in pharmacy, distributing leaflet/bag stuffers and providing staff training. A total of 24 barriers and 25 facilitators were identified. The main barriers associated to each vulnerable category were associated to effective promotional strategies to overcome them. Conclusion Pharmacists prioritize lifecycle and clinical vulnerability at the expense of narrowing down the definition of vulnerability. Some vulnerable groups are also under targeted in pharmacies. A wide variety of promotional strategies are available to pharmacies to overcome the specific barriers experienced by various groups.
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 | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".