Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34063185›Full record

ArticleVaccines2021

Shooting from the 'Scrip: Scope of Practice Laws and Access to Immunizations in the Pharmacy Setting.

Charles Stoecker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles StoeckerDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Tulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past two decades, most states in the United States have added authorization for pharmacists to administer some vaccinations. Expansions of this authority have also come with prescription requirements or other regulatory burdens. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of these expansions on influenza immunization rates in adults age 65 and over. A panel data, differences-in-differences regression framework to control for state-level unobserved confounders and shocks at the national level was used on a combination of a dataset of state-level statute and regulatory changes and influenza immunization data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Giving pharmacists permission to vaccinate had a positive impact on adult influenza immunization rates of 1.4 percentage points for adults age 65 and over. This effect was diminished by the presence of laws requiring pharmacists to obtain patient-specific prescriptions. There was no evidence that allowing pharmacists to administer vaccinations led patients to have fewer annual check-ups with physicians or not have a usual source of health care. Expanding pharmacists' scope of practice laws to include administering the influenza vaccine had a positive impact on influenza shot uptake. This may have implications for relaxing restrictions on other forms of care that could be provided by pharmacists.

Indexed as

immunizationinfluenzaoccupational licensingregulationscope of practice law

Identifiers

PMID34063185
PMCPMC8147434
OpenAlexW2617681697

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.