Pharmacist attitudes and provision of harm reduction services in North Carolina: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are among the most accessible healthcare providers in the United States and uniquely positioned to provide harm reduction services. The availability of pharmacy-based harm reduction services and pharmacist attitudes toward delivering these services have been understudied to date. We examine North Carolina (NC) pharmacists' experiences with and attitudes about harm reduction services and explore differences between rural and urban pharmacists. METHODS: A convenience sample of NC pharmacists participated in an anonymous, online survey regarding harm reduction services: non-prescription syringe sales; naloxone dispensing; and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening. Urban-rural differences were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Open-ended responses were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Three hundred pharmacists responded to the survey; 68 (23%) practiced in rural counties. Dispensing non-prescription syringes and naloxone at least occasionally was reported by 77% (n = 231) and 88% (n = 263) pharmacists, respectively. Pharmacy-delivered HIV or HCV screening was rare. Urban pharmacists dispensed naloxone more frequently than rural pharmacies (p = 0.04). Only 52% of pharmacists agreed that persons who inject drugs should always be allowed to buy non-prescription syringes. Rural pharmacists' attitudes toward harm reduction services for persons who inject drugs were statistically, though marginally, less supportive when compared to urban pharmacists' attitudes. The most common barrier to non-prescription syringe access was requiring patients to provide proof of prescription injection medication use, which 21% of pharmacists reported was required by their pharmacy's policy on non-prescription syringe sales. CONCLUSIONS: Although most pharmacies distributed naloxone and sold non-prescription syringes, pharmacy store policies and personal beliefs inhibited naloxone and non-prescription syringe dispensing. NC community pharmacies infrequently offer HIV and HCV screening. Paired with disseminating the evidence of the positive impact of harm reduction on individual and public health outcomes to NC pharmacists, institutional and systems changes to practice and policy may be important to promote harm reduction service availability, particularly for rural NC residents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

North Carolina Pharmacists' Support for Hormonal Contraception Prescription Status Change.

BackgroundPharmacist-prescribed hormonal contraception (HC) may offer additional avenues of access for patients; however, it is unknown whether pharmacists would support over-the-counter access to contraception over pharmacist-prescribed models. Objective: The objective of this study was to understand how North Carolina (NC) pharmacists believed HC should be classified and how pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics were associated with those beliefs. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey completed by 587 licensed NC pharmacists. The primary outcome of interest was how pharmacists believed HC should be classified: prescription-only, pharmacist-prescribed, behind-the-counter, or over-the-counter. Multinomial bivariate and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to describe the association between pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics with the outcomes of interest through odds ratios and adjusted odds ratios, respectively. Chi-square tests were used to examine the association of geographic location with distribution of attitudes toward HC classification. Results: Fifty-one percent of NC pharmacists supported classification of HC as pharmacist-prescribed, while 23% supported non-prescription (behind- or over-the-counter) classification. Controlling for pharmacist demographics and pharmacy characteristics, completing residency training was significantly associated with supporting pharmacist-prescribed vs prescription-only classification (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.55, P = .02). Pharmacists had higher odds of supporting pharmacist-prescribed vs prescription-only HC if they agreed that they were well trained to do so (aOR = 3.14, P < .01). Distribution of attitudes about classification of HC did not significantly differ by geographic location (P = .14). Conclusions: Most NC pharmacists support deviating from the current prescription-only classification of HC, with more support for pharmacist-prescribed classification. Continuing education programs should focus on training pharmacists to feel more confident prescribing HC.

Communication about Contraception with Adolescent Females with Asthma in Pediatric Visits.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The occurrence and characteristics of contraception discussions with adolescents are unexplored. Our study sought to address this gap using transcripts of audiotaped healthcare visits. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a secondary analysis of 153 transcripts of medical visits with female adolescents with asthma. Medical visits took place among 4 outpatient clinics in North Carolina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transcripts were reviewed for occurrence and characteristics of contraception discussions. Demographics were collected from adolescent interviews, caregiver questionnaires, and provider questionnaires. RESULTS: Contraception was mentioned in 3% (n = 5) of office visits. Conversations about contraception included the topics of contraception efficacy (20%), contraception side effects (60%), contraception adherence (20%), and adolescent sexual health (20%). No conversations included the topics of contraception indication or alternative methods. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about contraception occurred infrequently in healthcare visits. When conversations did occur, the topics that they covered lacked alignment with guideline recommendations.