ArticleJournal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA
Characterizing pharmacy deserts and designing a model to minimize inequities in pharmacy distribution in Virginia.
Article in Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Census Block Group Demographics, Mobility Patterns, and Pharmacy Visits.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Using standalone pharmacies to reduce tobacco retailer availability: neighbourhood associations and two competing policy options in four US states.Tobacco control · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPharmacy closures have become increasingly prevalent in the United States in recent years. Previous literature highlights socioeconomic and racial disparities in the distribution of pharmacy deserts.
objectivesTo identify and characterize pharmacy deserts in Virginia and to simulate potential locations to minimize inequities in pharmacy distribution.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used active pharmacy permits data from the Virginia Board of Pharmacy to identify census tracts considered pharmacy deserts by simultaneously satisfying 2 criteria: 1) low-income status (>20% residents living below the federal poverty line, or median household income <80% of a local comparator); and 2) low-access to pharmacies (distance >1, 5, or 10 miles for urban, suburban, and rural census tracts, respectively). Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of desert vs. nondesert tracts were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Locations within identified pharmacy deserts were randomly generated in 10,000 independent iterations.
resultsOf 2198 census tracts, 51 were considered pharmacy deserts, and 69 met the low-access criterion only. Pharmacy deserts were significantly more common in urban census tracts (5.5%), followed by rural (2.9%), and suburban (0.1%). Compared to nondesert, pharmacy desert tracts had significantly lower percentage of residents under 18 year-old, greater percentage of Black residents, uninsured, with Medicare or Medicaid coverage only, lower median household income, and greater percentage of residents living in poverty. Through geospatial simulation, 44 locations were identified where adding pharmacy services could significantly improve access, each potentially benefiting over 10,000 individuals.
conclusionFifty-one tracts in Virginia, primarily in urban areas, were considered pharmacy deserts. Compared to nondeserts, pharmacy desert status was associated with a lower proportion of residents under 18 year-old, greater proportion of Black and uninsured/publicly insured residents, and high poverty level, highlighting disparities in pharmacy access. Geospatial simulation identified several locations where placement of pharmacy services could benefit the largest number of residents living in desert tracts.
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.