Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34924315›Full record

ArticleResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP2022

Pharmacy interventions on COVID-19 in Europe: Mapping current practices and a scoping review.

Suzete Costa, Mariana Romão, Maria Mendes, Maria Rute Horta, António Teixeira Rodrigues, António Vaz Carneiro, Ana Paula Martins, Erika Mallarini, Huseyin Naci, Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors.

Suzete CostaInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: suzete.costa@isbe.research.ulisboa.pt.
Mariana RomãoInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Centre for Health Evaluation & Research (CEFAR), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias (ANF), R. Marechal Saldanha, 1, 1249-069 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: mariana.romao@anf.pt.
Maria MendesInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Centre for Medicines Information and Health Interventions (CEDIME), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias (ANF), R. Marechal Saldanha, 1, 1249-069 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: maria.mendes@anf.pt.
Maria Rute HortaInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Centre for Medicines Information and Health Interventions (CEDIME), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias (ANF), R. Marechal Saldanha, 1, 1249-069 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: rute.horta@anf.pt.
António Teixeira RodriguesInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Centre for Health Evaluation & Research (CEFAR), Infosaúde, Associação Nacional das Farmácias (ANF), R. Marechal Saldanha, 1, 1249-069 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: antoniot.rodrigues@anf.pt.
António Vaz CarneiroInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: avc@medicina.ulisboa.pt.
Ana Paula MartinsInstitute for Evidence-Based Health (ISBE), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Edifício Reynaldo dos Santos, Piso 3, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal; Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Health Technologies, Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Professor Gama Pinto, 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: apmartins@ff.ulisboa.pt.
Erika MallariniSDA Bocconi School of Management, Via Sarfati, 10, 20136, Milano, Italy. Electronic address: erika.mallarini@sdabocconi.it.
Huseyin NaciDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. Electronic address: h.naci@lse.ac.uk.
Zaheer-Ud-Din BabarDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD1 3DH, UK. Electronic address: z.babar@hud.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has put community pharmacists at the frontline of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Pharmacies had to reorganize and implement several different interventions and measures within a very short time frame.

objectives1) To map the current reported practice and trends and to review the literature on pharmacy-based interventions on COVID-19 provided in Europe; 2) To identify knowledge gaps and future avenues for pharmacy research, policy, and practice in response to public health emergencies.

methodsWe used a mixed methods approach combining country mapping of current practices of pharmacy interventions on COVID-19 reported by pharmacy associations in Europe with a scoping review of published literature.

resultsWe mapped current practices on 31 pharmacy interventions on COVID-19 in 32 countries in Europe. Almost all preventive measures to reduce health risks have been provided in most countries. Other frequent interventions reflected preparedness for stockpiling, increased demand for services and products, and important patient care interventions exceeding dispensing role. Expanded powers granted to pharmacies and legislation passed in view of COVID-19 enabled services that improve access to medicines and relevant products, patient screening and referral including point-of-care antigen testing, support to vulnerable patients, and COVID-19 vaccination. We identified 9 studies conducted in pharmacies in 7 countries in Europe. Most studies are cross-sectional and/or descriptive. Pharmacy associations played an important supporting role by developing and updating guidance and emergency plans to assist community pharmacists.

conclusionsA wide array of pharmacy interventions on COVID-19 was implemented in several countries within a very short time frame. Research on pharmacy interventions on COVID-19 is still in its infancy but confirmed the wide array of interventions provided and expanded powers granted to pharmacies. These findings may provide a significant impact to improve pharmacy research, policy, and practice in response to future public health emergencies in Europe and globally.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesCOVID-19PharmaciesPharmacyCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesEmergenciesHumansPandemicsPharmacistsProfessional RoleCOVID-19 VaccinesCommunity pharmacyCOVID-19EuropePandemicPublic healthScoping review

Identifiers

PMID34924315
PMCPMC8670105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.