ArticleJournal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP2023
A survey of South Carolina pharmacists' readiness to prescribe human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Article in Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Studies on HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Community Pharmacies in States with Restrictive Pharmacist Prescription Authority in the United States.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Facilitators and barriers to community pharmacy PrEP delivery: a scoping review.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
- Using implementation science to evaluate perceived feasibility of pharmacy-based HIV services in the Southeastern United States.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is largely underutilized in the Southern United States. Given their community presence, pharmacists are well positioned to provide PrEP within rural, Southern regions. However, pharmacists' readiness to prescribe PrEP in these communities remains unknown. Objective: To determine the perceived feasibility and acceptability of prescribing PrEP by pharmacists in South Carolina (SC). Methods: We distributed a 43-question online descriptive survey through the University of SC Kennedy Pharmacy Innovation Center's listerv of licensed SC pharmacists. We assessed pharmacists' comfort, knowledge, and readiness to provide PrEP. Results: A total of 150 pharmacists responded to the survey. The majority were White (73%, n=110), female (62%, n=93), and non-Hispanic (83%, n=125). Pharmacists practiced in retail (25%, n=37), hospital (22%, n=33), independent (17%, n=25), community (13%, n=19), specialty (6%, n=9), and academic settings (3%, n=4); 11% (n=17) practiced in rural locales. Pharmacists viewed PrEP as both effective (97%, n=122/125) and beneficial (74% n=97/131) for their clients. Many pharmacists reported being ready (60% n=79/130) and willing (86% n=111/129) to prescribe PrEP, although over half (62% n=73/118) cited lack of PrEP knowledge as a barrier. Pharmacists described pharmacies as an appropriate location to prescribe PrEP (72% n=97/134). Conclusions: Most SC pharmacists surveyed considered PrEP to be effective and beneficial for individuals who frequent their pharmacy and are willing to prescribe this therapy if statewide statutes allow. Many felt that pharmacies are an appropriate location to prescribe PrEP but lack a complete understanding of required protocols to manage these patients. Further investigation into facilitators and barriers of pharmacy-driven PrEP are needed to enhance utilization within communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.