Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007574›Full record

ReviewInnovations in pharmacy2019

A Review of the Pharmacist as Vaccinator.

Willis M Richardson, Albert I Wertheimer

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Innovations in pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Willis M RichardsonTemple University School of Pharmacy.
Albert I WertheimerTemple University School of Pharmacy.
Temple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study is to review literature about how the pharmacist's role as vaccination providers has been financially and clinically measured.

methodsA broad literature search was conducted up to May 2016 to identify economic or clinical data on pharmacy vaccinations. MEDLINE® and PUBMED databases were searched for publications useful or potentially useful for this review. The NIH and CDC websites were also searched for relevant materials. Search terms included vaccination, pharmacist, economic, pharmacoeconomics, cost, benefits cost-effectiveness, physicians, immunizations, vaccinations, pharmacy vaccines, cost, physician vaccines, financial, benefit, ambulatory pharmacist vaccination, clinical pharmacist, economics, pharmacist vaccine impact.

resultsThe search yielded a total of 68 articles of which 12 met the criteria to be included in this review. After examining articles for relevance to pharmacy vaccinations, two tables were created to highlight the clinical and economic advantages of the pharmacist as a vaccinator.

conclusionPharmacists who administer vaccines are an underutilized provider. This literature review reveals a pattern among studies measuring the pharmacist's impact on vaccination rates, patient preferences, and cost savings. Pharmacists have a history of demonstrated dependability, accuracy, and cost effectiveness. State laws, collaborative agreements, and health plans have continued to prevent patients from using the pharmacy to receive the CDC recommended vaccines. These barriers ultimately delay the Healthy People 2020 goals.

Identifiers

PMID34007574
PMCPMC8127098
OpenAlexW2961995067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.