Virtual Coaching Delivered by Pharmacists to Prevent COVID-19 Transmission

Interventions to Expand Community Pharmacists' Scope of Practice

BACKGROUND

The role of community pharmacists has evolved beyond the dispensing of medicines. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the interventions that expand the pharmacist's scope of practice within a community pharmacy setting and assess their effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published worldwide from 2013 to 2024, which focused on interventions designed to expand pharmacists' scope of practice in the community. The review was undertaken in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. To address the aim of this scoping review, the included RCTs were mapped to themes influenced by the Professional Practice Standards 2023 as developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia: medication management, collaborative care and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Twelve studies demonstrated the potential to expand community pharmacists' scope of practice. Two RCTs resulted in no effect of the intervention. One RCT (conducted in Italy) led to an actual change to community pharmacists' scope of practice, with a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of patients with controlled asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

On the whole, this scoping review synthesised the findings of peer-reviewed RCT studies that revealed expanding community pharmacists' scope of practice may result in improved patient outcomes, a reduced burden for the healthcare system, and greater productivity.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

What did we learn about changing behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review of interventions to change hand hygiene and mask use behaviour

BACKGROUND

behaviour change interventions were central in the COVID-19 response and are vital for strengthening pandemic preparedness and resilience. To be effective, interventions must target specific behavioural determinants, but determinants are complex and multifaceted and there is a gap in robust, theory driven evidence on which behavioural determinants are most effective at changing mask usage and hand hygiene behaviour.

PURPOSE

to map available evidence on the types of hand hygiene and mask usage behaviour change interventions conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability.

METHODS

we conducted a systematic review, searching four peer-reviewed databases for terms related to COVID-19, targeted behaviours (hand hygiene and mask usage) and interventions. Eligible studies were those which focused on adults or children in naturalistic, non-experimental settings; reported on an intervention designed to change hand hygiene and or mask usage to reduce COVID-19 transmission; provided clear outcome measures, including through self-report, proxy indicators or observation. Studies were excluded if they were purely qualitative, opinion pieces or based on secondary data alone; focused on health workers; measured intended rather than enacted behaviour; were conducted in laboratory or health care-based settings; involved infants; were published before the 11th of March 2020 (when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic) and published in a language other than English. There were no geographical limits set. Descriptive summaries were produced and the quality of evidence and reporting was evaluated. Studies were divided into three sub-groups according to the behaviour targeted and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were mapped. Effect estimates were summarised and the relationship between BCTs and effect was explored. Feasibility and acceptability was summarised where reported. Due to the heterogeneity of studies included, meta-analysis could not be conducted.

FINDINGS

sixteen citations met the criteria, with sub-studies (two citations including multiple studies) totalling nineteen eligible studies. The majority were randomised controlled trials which targeted hand hygiene only and were conducted in high income nations, with none conducted in crisis settings. Due to the constraints of the pandemic, many interventions were delivered online. The quality of studies was low, with the majority demonstrating a medium risk of bias (Likert scale: low, medium, high). Whilst acceptability and feasibility was good, both were rarely evaluated. 'Natural consequences' was the most commonly used BCT group. Fourteen of the studies elicited positive or potentially positive effects in at least one intervention arm and/or targeted behaviour. Effective interventions typically targeted multiple individual BCTs, including 'Instruction on how to perform a behaviour', 'Information about health consequences', and group 'Reward and threat', through repeated engagement over a sustained period of time.

CONCLUSION

there is a substantial knowledge gap, particularly in low resource and crisis settings, and available evidence is of low quality. We must address these gaps to enable evidence-based practice and strengthen pandemic preparedness and resilience. Future research should include another systematic review which includes grey literature and different languages, as well as more robust evaluations which use implementation research to explore the impact of multiple BCTs in low resource and crisis settings. Evaluations should include assessments of acceptability, practicability, affordability and equity.

Exploring COVID-19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long-term care staff: A scoping review

Background

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines, high levels of hesitancy were observed in the first few months of the COVID-19 vaccines' rollout. Factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy are well-described in the literature. Among the various strategies for promoting vaccine confidence, educational interventions provide a foundationally and widely implemented set of approaches for supporting individuals in their vaccine decisions. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational strategies to improve vaccine confidence is limited. We conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring and characterizing educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine confidence in adults.

Methods

We developed a search strategy with a medical information scientist and searched five databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We considered all study designs and reports. Interventions delivered to children or adolescents, interventions on non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as national or mass vaccination campaigns without documented interaction(s) between facilitator(s) and a specific audience were excluded. Articles were independently screened by three reviewers. After screening 4602 titles and abstracts and 174 full-text articles across two rounds of searches, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria. Ten additional studies were identified through hand searching. Data from included studies were charted and results were described narratively.

Results

We included 32 studies and synthesized their educational delivery structure, participants (i.e., facilitators and priority audience), and content. Formal, group-based presentations were the most common type of educational intervention in the included studies (75%). A third of studies (34%) used multiple strategies, with many formal group-based presentations being coupled with additional individual-based interventions (29%). Given the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines and the unique current context, studies reported personalized conversations, question periods, and addressing misinformation as important components of the educational approaches reviewed.

Conclusions

Various educational interventions were delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many initiatives involving multifaceted interventions utilizing both formal and informal approaches that leveraged community (cultural, religious) partnerships when developing and facilitating COVID-19 vaccine education. Train-the-trainer approaches with recognized community members could be of value as trust and personal connections were identified as strong enablers throughout the review.