Attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of Western Australians towards vaccine safety surveillance systems following COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: Concerns regarding adverse events following immunisation are a barrier to vaccine uptake. Health professionals use vaccine safety surveillance systems (VSSSs) to monitor vaccines and inform the public of safety data. With little known about public attitudes, perceptions, and experiences with VSSS, we examined them in the context of COVID-19 vaccinations in Western Australia. METHODS: Researchers conducted 158 qualitative interviews between March 2021 and May 2022 within the broader [name redacted] project. Data regarding VSSS were coded in NVivo using the deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: Despite some not knowing about VSSS, participants expected follow-up post COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitant or refusing participants knew about VSSS and regarded these systems positively. Additional considerations concerned the reliability of data collected by VSSS. CONCLUSION: Perceptions of VSSS signal a lack of understanding about how these systems work. Future studies should further explore the public's understanding of VSSS, whether VSSS improves vaccine confidence, and how governments can better communicate to the public about VSSS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Lack of understanding of how VSSS operate may be stymying attempts to build public vaccine confidence. Healthcare providers and governments could build public knowledge and understanding of VSSS to mitigate concerns of adverse events following immunisation.

Making a SmartStart for peanut introduction to support food allergy prevention guidelines for infants.

Background: Food allergy affects up to 10% of Australian infants. It was hypothesized that if parents follow the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy guidelines, Australian food allergy rates may stabilize or decline. Objective: This project aimed to determine whether SmartStartAllergy influenced parental introduction of peanut by age 12 months, including in high-risk infants. Methods: SmartStartAllergy integrates with general practice management software to send text messages to parents via participating general practices. The intervention group participants were sent text messages when their child was aged 6, 9, and 12 months; the control group participants were parents of 12-month-old infants. When their child was aged 12 months, all participants completed a questionnaire regarding eczema and family history of atopy. Infants with severe eczema and/or a family history of atopy were considered high-risk. Results: Between 21 September 2018 and 26 April 2022, a total of 29,092 parents were enrolled in SmartStartAllergy as intervention (n = 18,090) and control (n = 11,002) group members The intervention group was more likely to introduce peanut by 12 months (crude odds ratio = 5.18; P < .0001; 95% CI = 4.35-6.16). After adjustment for the infants' level of risk and family history of atopy and food allergy, the intervention group was more likely to introduce peanut by 12 months of age (adjusted odds ratio = 5.34; P < .01; 95% CI = 4.48-6.37). Conclusion: SmartStartAllergy appears to be an effective tool for encouraging parental introduction of peanut. The ability to provide parents with credible allergy prevention information, along with the capacity to collect simple responses via text along with additional information via an online questionnaire, make this a useful public health tool.

Contemporary trends in anaphylaxis burden and healthcare utilisation in Western Australia: A linked data study.

Background: Anaphylaxis is a growing public health problem in Australia. To determine the extent of the problem, we linked multiple health datasets to examine temporal trends in anaphylaxis events across the health system in Western Australia (WA). Methods: We identified an anaphylaxis cohort from 1980 to 2020 using linked datasets from ambulance, emergency departments, hospital inpatients and deaths. Age-standardised anaphylaxis event rates were calculated from 2010 to 2020. Dataset-specific rates for anaphylaxis were also examined, to show differences in health care utilisation. Annual percent change in rates (2010-2019) were estimated using age-adjusted Poisson regression models. Results: A total of 19 140 individuals (mean age 31 years; 51% female) experienced 24 239 anaphylaxis events between 2010 and 2020. From 2010 to 2019, the average annual percent increase (95% CI) in rates was 5.3% (4.8-5.8%), from 70.3 to 113.9, with rates reducing to 76.5/100 000 population in 2020. Adolescents and young adults aged 5-14 years and 15-24 years had the greatest increase of 6.9% (5.6-8.1%) and 6.8% (5.6-8.0) respectively, with those over 25 years increasing by approximately 5% per year and children 1-4 years showing the lowest annual increase of 2.6% (1.1-4.2%). The highest absolute rates were seen in under 1 year (269.7/100 000; 2019). There has been an acceleration of trends from 2015 to 2019, underpinned by large increases in 15-24 and 25-34 years. All databases, show similar increasing trends, with ambulance attendance (33.7 per 100 000), emergency presentation (89.8 per 100 000) and hospital admissions (46.2 per 100 000), for anaphylaxis highest in 2019. However, whilst ambulance and emergency presentations have grown by 8.9% (95%CI 7.9-9.8%) and 6.6% per year (95%CI 6.0-7.2%), respectively, hospitalisations appear to be steadying with only a 0.9% (95%CI 0.2-1.6%) yearly rise. Conclusion: Rates of anaphylaxis continue to increase, with WA having higher rates than previous estimates for Australia. Whilst rates are still high in infants, lower trends in children compared to older ages may indicate better prevention of allergy. Results show more people experiencing anaphylaxis now receive care in emergency and ambulance, rather than hospital. Further exploration of the patient care journey through prehospital and inpatient care is required, to understand the changing health demands of people who experience anaphylaxis.

"Fighting the pandemic!" Western Australian pharmacists' perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In Western Australia, community pharmacists are authorized to administer a range of vaccines without a prescription. Since mid-July 2021, pharmacists can also administer Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Little is known about how pharmacists think and feel about giving and receiving COVID-19 vaccines and how they discuss it with patients. AIM: This study aimed to explore Western Australian pharmacists' perceptions on being vaccinated with, administering, and communicating about COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Semi structured interviews were conducted with 20 pharmacists from metropolitan and regional areas of Western Australia across a two-week period in July and early August 2021. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 20 and data was thematically analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Most pharmacists (n = 16, 80 %) had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Some expressed difficulty accessing the vaccine while two unvaccinated pharmacists were hesitant to receive it due to concerns about vaccine development. The majority of pharmacists spoke positively about administering the vaccines, discussing perceived facilitators such as designated vaccination days but also perceived barriers such as inadequate financial reimbursement compared to other healthcare providers. Many pharmacists obtained their information from Australian government sources and training modules. Pharmacists were only passively promoting COVID-19 vaccines, with conversations mostly initiated by patients. Most pharmacists specified they would highlight the common side effects when administering the vaccine and would provide patients with written information. CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacists were willing to administer and be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. Since pharmacists play an important role in increasing vaccine uptake, governments should provide equitable reimbursement to pharmacists in line with other vaccinators such as General Practitioners. We welcome the recent resources produced by governments and pharmacy professional organizations to help pharmacists actively promote the vaccines since this work was undertaken.

Patients' Perspectives on Commencing Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: An Exploratory Qualitative Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in order to lower stroke risk. However, patient refusal to commence OACs hinders effective anticoagulation. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to patient agreement to commence OACs from the perspectives of patients with AF attending Australian general practices. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study utilising semi-structured individual interviews was conducted from March to July 2022. RESULTS: Ten patients (60% male, median age = 78.5 years) completed interviews. Patients' passive roles in decision-making were identified as a facilitator. Other prominent facilitators included doctors explaining adequately and aligning their recommendations with patients' overall health goals, including the prevention of stroke and associated disabilities, and a clear understanding of the pros and cons of taking OACs. Reportedly insufficient explanation from doctors and the inconvenience associated with taking warfarin were identified as potential barriers. CONCLUSION: Addressing factors that influence patient agreement to commence OACs should be an essential aspect of quality improvement interventions. Subsequent studies should also delve into the perspectives of eligible patients with AF who choose not to commence OACs as well as the perspectives of both patients and doctors regarding the decision to continue OAC treatment.

Pharmacists' use of guidelines for the supply of non-prescription medicines: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines support best practice for healthcare practice. In Australia, some non-prescription medicines are only accessible after consultation with a pharmacist and are known as Pharmacist Only medicines. Guidelines for providing some Pharmacist Only medicines are available, however, it is currently unknown if and how these guidelines are used in practice.The objective was to characterise pharmacists', intern pharmacists and pharmacy students' use of guidelines for Pharmacist Only medicines. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of Australian registered pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students was administered in July 2020. Questions explored the participants' use of Pharmacist Only medicine guidelines (available both in print and online; available online only) in the preceding 12 months. Data were analysed descriptively (i.e. frequencies, percentages). KEY FINDINGS: In total, 574 eligible respondents completed the survey. Overall, 396 (69%) reported accessing the online and in-print guidelines in the previous 12 months with 185 (33%) accessing online-only guidelines. The guideline on emergency contraception was used the most out of all guidelines in the past 12 months (278, 48%). Overall, respondents reported accessing guidelines to update knowledge, check their practice reflected best practice and content familiarisation. Respondents' reasons for not accessing guidelines were due to respondents stating they did not need the information or that they had previously accessed the guidelines more than 12 months ago. These reasons varied between respondent groups. CONCLUSIONS: Access and use of the Pharmacist Only medicines guidelines varied between pharmacists, interns and students. Further understanding of the influences of the use of these guidelines will help inform professional bodies on how best to develop guidelines to increase consistent use in practice and implement interventions to increase use.

Use of a reference text by pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Reference texts assist pharmacists by addressing knowledge gaps and enabling evidence-based decisions when providing patient care. It is unknown whether reference text utilisation patterns differ between pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students. To describe and compare the self-reported use and perceptions of a reference text, namely the national formulary, by pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students. METHODS: Registered pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students living in Australia were surveyed in July 2020. The survey was electronic and self-administered. Questions considered self-reported use of a specific reference text in the preceding 12 months. KEY FINDINGS: There were 554 eligible responses out of 774 who commenced the survey: 430 (78%) pharmacists, 45 (8%) intern pharmacists and 79 (14%) pharmacy students. Most participants (529/554, 96%) reported historical use of the text, though pharmacists were significantly less likely than intern pharmacists and students to use it frequently (52/422, 12% versus 16/43, 37% versus 23/76, 30%, P < 0.001). Pharmacists (44%, 177/404) reported using the text as a tool to resolve a situation when providing a service or patient care (177/404, 44%) or as a teaching resource (150/404, 38%). In contrast, intern pharmacists and students most commonly use these to familiarise themselves with the contents (30/43, 70%; 46/76, 61%) or update their knowledge (34/43, 79%; 53/76, 70%). CONCLUSIONS: Access and use patterns varied significantly across career stages. A broader understanding of the use of reference texts may help develop interventions to optimise the content and usability. Varying usage patterns across the groups may inform the tailoring of texts for future use.

Can Research Training be Improved in Health Professional Student Curricula? A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Health Students' Experiences with an Integrated Research Training Platform.

Introduction: Project-based learning is currently the status quo for research training for health professional students; however, it alone is not sufficient for holistic development of research skills. One promising style of intervention that can complement project-based research training is a centralised hub of e-learning resources. Therefore, we explored the perception of health professionals in tertiary education, towards the E-learning hub named 'Health and Medical Sciences Research Modules'. Specifically, we explored (1) the role the Modules can play in supporting students in their research training courses, (2) the perception of the selection of topics and content quality and (3) student engagement with content. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted via the online platform Zoom for University of Western Australia 3rd- and 4th-year Dental doctoral students, and 2nd-year Master of Pharmacy students. Interview transcripts were analysed using the framework method, to identify manifest and latent level themes. Results: Eleven participants completed the interview, including five dentistry and six pharmacy students. The analysis yielded numerous manifest level themes including selection and depth of topics, and four latent level themes: content volume and balance, relevance of content to project, alignment and sequencing, and interactivity. Discussion: The present study suggests the Modules content and the online platform were well received as a complementary intervention to project-based learning. However, issues such as content oversaturation emerged as topics which can be addressed to improve the learning experience. These topics should be considered when considering further implementation of e-learning hubs to complement project-based learning, across Australia and worldwide.

Impact of public health interventions for food allergy prevention on rates of infant anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Eleven percent of Australian infants have confirmed food allergy. We hypothesized earlier introduction may lead to higher rates of infant anaphylaxis, irrespective of whether the overall rate of food allergy in the population was ultimately reduced. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a public health campaign, targeting earlier introduction of allergenic foods, affected rates of infant anaphylaxis. METHODS: Data were obtained from St John Ambulance (SJA) Western Australia and Western Australian emergency departments (ED) on infant (≤12 months) anaphylaxis over a 5-year period (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020). Adrenaline administration data were collected in the SJA dataset. Poisson regression was undertaken to assess trends in anaphylaxis over time. Segmented regression analysis was undertaken to assess differences in anaphylaxis rates before and after intervention. RESULTS: The SJA and ED datasets included 172 and 294 events, respectively, coded as infant anaphylaxis. Rates of infant anaphylaxis increased over time for both SJA and ED datasets, with a 1-year increase rate ratio of 1.21 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.35; P value < .01) and 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.20; P = .01), respectively. Segmented regression indicated no significant difference in rates after intervention. Adrenaline was not coded as being administered in 109 of the 172 anaphylaxis events. CONCLUSION: Rates of infant anaphylaxis increased over the 5-year reporting period; however, there was no clear increase related to the timing of the public health campaign implementation. Reported adrenaline use was suboptimal. Assessing rates of food allergy in all age groups is required to determine whether there has been an overall reduction in food allergy owing to the intervention.

Safety of Four COVID-19 Vaccines across Primary Doses 1, 2, 3 and Booster: A Prospective Cohort Study of Australian Community Pharmacy Vaccinations.

Four COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria), Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) and Novavax NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid). We sought to examine adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) at days 3 and 42 after primary doses 1, 2, 3 and booster. We conducted active vaccine safety surveillance from 130 community pharmacies in Australia integrated with AusVaxSafety, between August 2021-April 2022. Main outcomes: AEFI at 0-3 days post-vaccination; medical review/advice at 3 days and 42 days post-vaccination; SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection by day 42. Of 110,024 completed day 3 surveys (43.6% response rate), 50,367 (45.8%) reported any AEFI (highest proportions: Pfizer 42%, primary dose 3; AstraZeneca 58.3%, primary dose 1; Moderna 65.4% and Novavax 58.8%, both primary dose 2). The most common AEFI reported across all doses/vaccines were local reactions, systemic aches and fatigue/tiredness. Overall, 2172/110,024 (2.0%) and 1182/55,329 (2.1%) respondents sought medical review at days 3 and 42, respectively, and 931/42,318 (2.2%) reported breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection at day 42. We identified similar AEFI profiles but at lower proportions than previously reported for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines. Moderna vaccine was the most reactogenic and associated with higher AEFI proportions across primary doses 2, 3, and booster.

Immediate Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Australian Pharmacies: A Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Four COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (Comirnaty), AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria), Moderna mRNA-1273 (Spikevax), and Novavax NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid). We sought to examine the type and management of immediate adverse events following immunisation (I-AEFI) after COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Retrospective review of I-AEFI recorded between July 2021 and June 2022 in 314 community pharmacies in Australia. RESULTS: I-AEFI were recorded in 0.05% (n = 526/977,559) of all COVID-19 vaccinations (highest: AstraZeneca (n = 173/161,857; 0.11%); lowest: Pfizer (n = 50/258,606; 0.02%)). The most common reactions were: (1) syncope, after the first dose of AstraZeneca (n = 105/67,907; 0.15%), Moderna (n = 156/108,339; 0.14%), and Pfizer (n = 22/16,287; 0.14%); and (2) Nausea/vomiting after the first dose of Pfizer (n = 9/16,287; 0.06%), Moderna (n = 55/108,339; 0.05%), and AstraZeneca (n = 31/67,907; 0.05%) vaccines. A total of 23 anaphylactic reactions were recorded (n = 23/977,559; 0.002%), and 59 additional I-AEFI were identified using MedDRA® terminology. Pharmacists primarily managed syncope by laying the patient down (n = 227/342; 66.4%); nausea/vomiting was managed primarily by laying the patient down (n = 62/126; 49.2%), giving water (n = 38/126; 30.2%), or monitoring in the pharmacy (n = 29/126; 23.0%); anaphylactic reaction was treated with adrenaline (n = 18/23; 78.3%) and n = 13/23 (56.5%) anaphylactic reactions were treated with the combination of: administered adrenaline, called ambulance, and laid patient down. CONCLUSION: The most commonly recorded I-AEFI was syncope after COVID-19 vaccination in pharmacy; I-AEFI are similar to those previously reported. Pharmacists identified and managed serious and non-serious I-AEFI appropriately and comprehensively.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries, and to assess their contribution to improving knowledge of anaphylaxis and care of patients who experience anaphylaxis by measuring their research output. INTRODUCTION: Structured data collection and reporting systems, such as registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and to protect the growing number of patients with severe allergy. There is a need to characterize current anaphylaxis registries to identify their value in anaphylaxis surveillance, management, and research. Information synthesized in this review will provide knowledge on benefits and gaps in current registries, which may inform the implementation and global standardization of future anaphylaxis reporting systems. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered literature describing registries worldwide that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources were included if they described the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries. METHODS: This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles. Identified keywords and index terms were adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. Only full-text studies in English were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full text of potentially relevant articles were retrieved; full-text screening and data extraction were also conducted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary were used to describe and compare the scope and features (eg, inclusion criteria, patient demographics, clinical symptoms) of the identified anaphylaxis registries, and to outline their output to assess their contribution to research and clinical practice for anaphylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 77 full-text publications and eight gray literature sources were used to extract data. The literature search identified 19 anaphylaxis registries, with sites in 28 countries including Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Australia. The main purposes of the identified registries were to collect clinical data for research; provide clinical support tools to improve patient care; and operate as allergen surveillance systems to protect the wider community with allergies. Differences in inclusion and health care settings exist, with 11 collecting data on anaphylaxis of any cause, two on food reactions alone, three on fatal anaphylaxis, one on perioperative anaphylaxis, and two on allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). Five registries enroll cases in allergy centers, five in hospital settings, one in schools, and others target a combination of general practitioners, specialists in emergency departments, and other relevant hospital departments and allergy outpatient clinics. Only three registries operate under a mandatory framework. A total of 57 publications were considered research outputs from registries. All registries except two have published studies from collected data, with the greatest number of articles published from 2019 to the present. Publications mostly addressed questions regarding demographic profile, causes and cofactors, severity, fatal reactions, and gaps in management. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated that anaphylaxis registries differ in their scope and operation, having been established for different purposes. Importantly, registries have contributed significantly to research, which has highlighted gaps in anaphylaxis management, provoking allergens, and informed targets for prevention for severe and fatal events. Beyond this, registries relay information about anaphylaxis to clinicians and regulatory bodies to improve patient care and protect the community. The ability to link registry data with other health datasets, standardization of data across registries, and incorporation of clinical care indicators to promote quality health care across the health system represent important targets for future systems.

Nip allergies in the Bub: a qualitative study for a public health approach to infant feeding for allergy prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To identify a brand, key messages and resources to underpin a public health approach to food allergy prevention. METHODS: A focus group design was used to explore perceptions and opinions of potential brands, infant feeding messages and resources for providing standardised food allergy prevention information. Focus groups were conducted in February 2018 using interview guides and were transcribed verbatim. A content analysis of the transcripts was undertaken using thematic analysis software. The University of Western Australia provided ethics approval: RA/4/20/4280. RESULTS: Seven focus groups with 39 participants were conducted. Four slogans and styles of imagery were considered. 'Nip Allergies in the Bub' was the most favoured slogan and images of babies with food were most favoured. Participant feedback was sought regarding messages and supporting messages were considered important. Participants were consulted about useful resources and a website was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting focus groups assisted the selection of a brand, messages and resources to underpin a public health approach to implementing allergy prevention guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: This is the first focus group research undertaken for food allergy prevention. Identification of a meaningful brand, key messages and resources will support a public health approach to implementing allergy prevention guidelines.

Use of thromboprophylaxis guidelines and risk stratification tools in atrial fibrillation: A survey of general practitioners in Australia.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines produced by cardiology societies (henceforth referred to simply as 'clinical guidelines') recommend thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have moderate-to-high stroke risk. However, deviations from these recommendations are observed, especially in the primary healthcare setting. The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the self-reported use of AF clinical guidelines and risk stratification tools among Australian general practitioners (GPs), and their perceptions regarding the available resources. METHOD: We conducted an online survey of Australian GPs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the findings. RESULTS: Responses from 115 GPs were included for analysis. Respondents reported various ways of accessing thromboprophylaxis-related information (n = 113), including clinical guidelines (13.3%), 'Therapeutic Guidelines© ' (37.2%) and Royal Australian College of General Practitioners websites (16.8%). Of those who reported reasons against accessing information from clinical guidelines (n = 97), the most frequent issues were: too many AF guidelines to choose from (34.0%; 33/97), different guidelines for different diseases (32.0%; 31/97), time-consuming to read guidelines (21.6%; 21/97), disagreements between different guideline recommendations (20.0%; 19/97), conflict with criteria for government subsidy (17.5%; 17/97) and GPs' busy schedules (15.5%; 15/97). When assessing patients' risk of stroke (n = 112) and bleeding (n = 111), the majority of the respondents reported primarily relying on a formal stroke risk (67.0%) and bleeding risk (55.0%) assessment tools, respectively. Respondents reported using formal stroke and bleeding risk assessment tools mainly when newly initiating patients on therapy (72.4%; 76/105 and 65.3%; 65/101, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among our small sample of Australian GPs, most did not access thromboprophylaxis-related information directly from AF-specific clinical guidelines developed by cardiology societies. Although the majority reported using formal stroke and bleeding assessment tools, these were typically used on OAC initiation only. More focus is needed on formal risk reassessment as clinically indicated and at regular review.

Do pharmacy practice standards effectively describe behaviour? Reviewing practice standards using a behavioural specificity framework.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and practice standards exist to communicate the conduct and behaviour expected of health care professionals and ensure consistent quality practice. It is important that they describe behaviours explicitly so they can be interpreted, enacted and measured with ease. The AACTT framework specifies behaviour in terms of the: Action to be performed, Actor who performs the action, Context where the action occurs, Target who the action is performed with/for and Time when the action is performed (AACTT). It provides the most up to date framework for specifying behaviours and is particularly relevant to complex behavioural problems that involve sequences of behaviours performed by different people. Behavioural specificity within pharmacy practice standards has not been explored. AIM: To determine if behaviours described in the Professional Practice Standards for Australian Pharmacists specify Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time. METHODS: Two researchers independently reviewed the scope and structure of the practice standards and one extracted action statements (behaviours) verbatim. Through an iterative process, the researchers modified and developed the existing AACTT definitions to operationalise them for application to review of the action statements in the practice standards. The operational definitions, decision criteria and curated examples were combined in a codebook. The definitions were consistently applied through a directed content analysis approach to evaluate all extracted action statements by one researcher. For consistency 20% was independently checked for agreement by a second researcher. RESULTS: A novel codebook to apply AACTT criteria to evaluate practice standards was developed. Application of this codebook identified 768 independent behaviours. Of these, 300 (39%) described at least one discrete observable action, none specified an actor, 25 (3%) specified context, 131 (17%) specified target and 88 (11%) specified time. CONCLUSION(S): The behaviours detailed in practice standards for Australian pharmacists do not consistently specify behaviours in terms of Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time. Developers in the pharmacy profession, and beyond, should consider the behavioural specificity of their documents to improve interpretability, usability and adherence to the behaviours detailed. This also has implications for the development and evaluation of interventions to change such behaviours and improve quality of care.

Use of professional practice guidance resources in pharmacy: a cross-sectional nationwide survey of pharmacists, intern pharmacists, and pharmacy students.

BACKGROUND: Variations in practice are commonplace in healthcare where health professionals, such as pharmacists act as autonomous practitioners. This is evident in simulated patient studies, where pharmacists practice does not meet widely accepted standards for medicines supply or treatment of an ailment. To promote best pharmacy practice a myriad of guidance resources including practice guidelines, codes and standards are produced by professional organisations. These resources provide a framework for pharmacy practice and endeavour to facilitate consistency in provision of pharmacy-based services to consumers. Despite their role in specifying essential pharmacist behaviours, there is limited research exploring if and how these resources are used in practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterise Australian pharmacists' use of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia's Code of Ethics, Professional Practice Guidelines and Professional Practice Standards. METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-administered, electronic survey of registered pharmacists, intern pharmacists and pharmacy students living in Australia was conducted in July 2020. Questions considered use of professional practice resources (by resource group) in the preceding 12 months. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 601 responses included in the analysis 462 (76.9%) of respondents were registered pharmacists, 88 (14.6%) pharmacy students and 51 (8.5%) intern pharmacists. Interns and students accessed overarching practice resources, such as the Professional Practice Standards, Code of Ethics and Dispensing Practice Guidelines more frequently than practising pharmacists. Pharmacists accessed professional practice guidelines, such as Practice Guidelines for the Provision of Immunisation Services Within Pharmacy, more often than students. More pharmacists than interns and students indicated that they would access guidelines to resolve practice and patient care issues. All resources except the Professional Practice Standards for Pharmacists (67.4%) were accessed by less than 50% of respondents in the preceding 12-month period. Reasons for not accessing resources varied between participant and resource groups, and generally were due to a lack of awareness of the resource or not considering them necessary for the individual's practice. CONCLUSION(S): Access and use patterns for professional practice guidance resources change with experience. Professional organisations responsible for developing resources should consider these patterns when designing and reviewing resources and related policies. To ensure resources are meeting the needs of the profession, students, interns, and pharmacists should be involved in the review of and design of further resources.

Reasons for non-adherence to thromboprophylaxis prescribing guidelines in atrial fibrillation in Western Australia: A qualitative descriptive study of general practitioners' views.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of the atrial fibrillation (AF) population attending Australian primary care is not receiving guideline-adherent oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. This study aimed to explore reasons for non-adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines in AF from the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and to map these reasons to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to identify potential opportunities to support practice change. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative descriptive study among GPs practising in Western Australia was conducted using semi-structured interviews, from November 2020 to February 2021. The Framework Method was employed to facilitate thematic analysis, using NVivo software. Interview responses were also mapped to the COM-B model. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 GPs initially consented participated in the semi-structured interview (Male = 56%, median age = 52 years, data saturation reached with 6 participants). Two themes emerged from analysis of the interview transcripts: (1) GPs' decision-making process and (2) Patient refusal to take OACs. The COM-B model mapping identified behavioural factors that could impact adherence: capability (GPs' knowledge and understanding of AF guideline recommendations), opportunity (access to a cardiologist, and patients' refusal to take OACs), and motivation (using formal bleeding risk assessment tools). CONCLUSION: GPs identified various reasons contributing to non-adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines in patients with AF. Multifaceted interventions should consider behavioural opportunities to improve adherence, including education and training, electronic decision support, clinical audits by allied health professionals, partnership between general practices and local hospitals, and cardiologist-led interventions to support GPs. Further studies are needed to capture patients' reasons for refusing OACs.

A systematic review of infant feeding food allergy prevention guidelines - can we AGREE?

Food allergy is a significant issue worldwide, particularly in Westernised countries. There is no clear explanation why food allergy appears to have increased so rapidly in recent years, particularly in young children, hence ongoing research to identify effective primary prevention strategies. Food allergy prevention guidelines for health professionals have been developed based on existing clinical trial evidence for effective translation and implementation. As these guidelines underpin clinical practice, it is important to ensure robust processes of development. We conducted a systematic review to identify food allergy prevention guidelines for health professional use; to compare the recommendations made by the identified guideline documents; and to assess the quality of the identified guideline documents. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Global Health and Guidelines International Network for the period 1990 to 13 August 2019, to identify articles referring to English-language food allergy prevention guidelines or the guidelines themselves. A grey literature search of Google Scholar and reference checking was also undertaken. The guidelines were compared for recommendation similarities and differences. An Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) appraisal was undertaken to assess guideline quality. The electronic database search yielded 1121 publications and reference checking identified an additional 16 publications. After title, abstract and full text screening, data extraction was undertaken on 156 publications and with additional reference checking, 28 food allergy prevention guidelines and advice documents were identified. Comparison of the recommendations within the guidelines and advice documents indicated the greatest variation in recommendations related to exclusive breastfeeding and timing of solid food introduction. Eight of the 10 guidelines and none of the 18 advice documents met the quality threshold set by the reviewers. Overall, documents specifically termed "guidelines" scored better than advice documents when assessed using the AGREE II tool. Variation in recommendations may create confusion for health professionals and result in inconsistent advice being provided to parents, and less translation of the evidence into actual food allergy reduction in the population. Appraisal using the AGREE II tool identified that there is considerable room for improvement in the development of guidelines and advice documents for food allergy prevention. The AGREE II appraisal identified common areas of poorer quality development and/or documentation of processes to inform future guideline development. Based on this study, we recommend the use of validated guideline development tools, to direct food allergy prevention guideline review or development. Use of the AGREE II tool, to direct the review and development of guidelines, is very likely to improve guideline quality.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will describe the scope and operational features of global registries for anaphylaxis and assess their contribution to improving knowledge and care of anaphylaxis by measuring their research output. INTRODUCTION: The incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing around the world. Structured reporting systems, such as patient registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and protect the growing number of allergic patients. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The concept to be mapped is registries across the world that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources will be considered if they describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries. Only full-text studies published in English will be included. There will be no date restriction. METHODS: The JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL will be searched from inception date for relevant articles. Identified keyword and index terms will be adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. The authors and developers of identified registries will be contacted, where possible, to obtain additional information about the development and structure of systems. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies will be resolved by a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary will be used to describe and compare the scope and features of anaphylaxis registries and outline their output to assess their contribution to research, clinical practice, and public health policy for anaphylaxis.