Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29864159›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Mapping pharmacy deserts and determining accessibility to community pharmacy services for elderly enrolled in a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program.

Priti Pednekar, Andrew Peterson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Geographic Variation in Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Priti PednekarDepartment of Health Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6684-8002
Andrew PetersonDepartment of Health Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
University of the Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLimited studies have investigated geographic accessibility to a nearby community pharmacy for elderly which is an essential determinant of the access to medications and pharmacy services. This research identified pharmacy deserts and investigated availability of different types of community pharmacies and their services for elderly enrolled in a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (SPAP).

methodsThe state of Pennsylvania in the US was used as a case to demonstrate the geographic accessibility to community pharmacy and services for elderly enrolled in SPAP. The locations of community pharmacies and households of elderly enrolled in SPAP were derived from Pharmaceutical Assistance Contract for the Elderly programs' database. The street addresses were geocoded and the distance to a nearby community pharmacy was calculated for study sample using the haversine formula. The demographic and geographic data were aggregated to Census Tracts and pharmacy deserts were identified using the predefined criteria. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to determine whether there are statistical differences in the socio-demographic profiles and distribution of different types of community pharmacies and their services in pharmacy deserts and non-deserts. This research used hot spot analyses at county level to identify clusters of pharmacy deserts, areas with high concentration of different racial/ethnic groups and clusters of high densities of chain and independent pharmacies.

resultsThe Spatial analysis revealed that 39% and 61% Census Tracts in Pennsylvania were pharmacy deserts and non-deserts respectively (p < 0.001). Pharmacy deserts were found to have significantly more females, married and white elderly and fewer blacks and Hispanics compared to pharmacy non-deserts. Pharmacy deserts had significantly fewer chain and independent pharmacies and less delivery and 24-hour services in pharmacies than pharmacy non-deserts. Hot spot analyses showed that clusters of pharmacy deserts were more concentrated in southcentral, northwest and northeast regions of the state which represent rural areas and overlapped with clusters of high concentration of white individuals.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that urban-rural inequality, racial/ethnic disparity and differences in availability of pharmacies and their services exist between pharmacy deserts and non-deserts. The methodological approach and analyses used in this study can also be applied to other public health programs to evaluate the coverage and breadth of public health services.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityMedical AssistanceAgedAged, 80 and overCommunity Pharmacy ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNational Health ProgramsPennsylvaniaPharmaciesRural PopulationSocioeconomic FactorsSpatial AnalysisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29864159
PMCPMC5986116
OpenAlexW2806000507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.