Identification of Social Determinants of Education Among Pharmacy Students: Results From a Single-Institution Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify social determinants of education (SDOE) among pharmacy students enrolled in the entry-level Doctor of Pharmacy program at the University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. METHODS: An original 28-item survey was developed and disseminated to first through fourth year students enrolled in the entry-level Doctor of Pharmacy program at the University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences during the spring 2023 semester. The survey evaluated student demographics, educational performance, and SDOE in 6 categories: physical health, psychosocial health, economic stability, self-motivation, social environment/community, and physical environment/community. RESULTS: A total of 133 students responded to the survey. Over half of the respondents acknowledged difficulties completing errands or self-care tasks owing to their physical, mental, or emotional health. Over half of respondents also reported concerns about covering expenses at the end of the month. Respondents also reported eating less because of financial restraints (20.0%), worrying about housing (22.9%), feeling unsafe in their neighborhood (29.0%), and feeling lonely or isolated (63.4%). In the secondary analysis, the respondents who had concerns with covering expenses, affording food, or losing housing had significantly lower academic performance. CONCLUSION: This study identified several SDOE among pharmacy students at our institution, suggesting that students at even the highest levels of education may be subject to disparities. The identification of SDOE provides insight into barriers that are potentially hidden but are highly likely to impact student engagement and success. Efforts toward reducing disparities and promoting equitable opportunities for students are necessary to ensure continued growth and diversification of the pharmacy profession.

Primary Care and Infectious Disease Provider Adherence to HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Prescribing and Monitoring Recommendations.

This study aimed to compare primary care (PC) and infectious diseases (ID) provider adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribing and monitoring parameters outlined in Centers for Disease Control/Department of Health and Human Services (CDC/DHHS) guidelines. This retrospective cohort analysis from 2017 to 2022 used prescription and laboratory order data to identify patients prescribed PrEP by PC or ID providers. Primary endpoints assessed were adherence to baseline and follow-up HIV monitoring recommendations in the 12 months following the initial PrEP prescription. Secondary endpoints included appropriate PrEP prescription order quantities (≤ 90-day supply), appropriate renal function monitoring, and identification of factors independently associated with follow-up HIV monitoring adherence. Of the 324 eligible patients identified, 112 received PrEP from an ID specialist and 212 from a PC provider. Patients prescribed PrEP from an ID specialist were more likely to have appropriately completed baseline HIV monitoring (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.20, 5.47), follow-up HIV monitoring (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08, 3.05), and renal function monitoring (OR = 2.81, 95% CI 1.69, 4.68); The ID group was also more likely to have PrEP prescriptions appropriately authorized for a days' supply of ≤ 90 days (OR = 4.41, 95% CI 2.60, 7.48). Patients receiving PrEP care from ID specialists had better adherence to all assessed PrEP prescribing and monitoring recommendations compared to those receiving care from PC providers.

A comparison of clinical pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes versus usual care in a federally qualified health center

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacists have demonstrated their ability to improve patient outcomes over usual care for patients with type 2 diabetes and glycemic levels above goal, though reasons for this are not well defined. Numerous medications exist for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and different patterns of medication use by clinical pharmacists may explain these benefits. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin by a clinical pharmacist versus usual care by a physician or advanced practice provider in a federally qualified health center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients 18 to 85 years old with type 2 diabetes, A1C ≥9%, receiving basal insulin was conducted. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: (1) those who received clinical pharmacist care and (2) those who received usual care from a physician or advanced practice provider. The primary outcome evaluated the proportion of patients treated with the addition of a non-basal insulin medication. Type of medication changes or additions as well as change in A1C and change in weight were also analyzed. Outcomes were evaluated at six months post-index A1C. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were identified (n=129 in the usual care group and n=73 in the clinical pharmacist group). A non-basal insulin medication was added in 29% of patients receiving usual care versus 41% of patients receiving clinical pharmacist care (adjusted p = 0.040). Usual care providers more frequently added metformin, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, while clinical pharmacists more frequently added prandial insulin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors. A1C decreased 1.6% in the clinical pharmacist group versus 0.9% in the usual care group (adjusted p = 0.055). No significant change in weight was observed between the clinical pharmacist and usual care group (0.2 kg versus -1.0 kg, respectively; adjusted p = 0.175). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes varied between clinical pharmacists and other clinician providers. For patients already on basal insulin, clinical pharmacists were more likely to intensify therapy with the addition of non-basal insulin, including more frequent initiation of prandial insulin and by adding newer antihyperglycemic agents

No disponible

A comparison of clinical pharmacist management of type 2 diabetes versus usual care in a federally qualified health center.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacists have demonstrated their ability to improve patient outcomes over usual care for patients with type 2 diabetes and glycemic levels above goal, though reasons for this are not well defined. Numerous medications exist for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and different patterns of medication use by clinical pharmacists may explain these benefits. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin by a clinical pharmacist versus usual care by a physician or advanced practice provider in a federally qualified health center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients 18 to 85 years old with type 2 diabetes, A1C ≥9%, receiving basal insulin was conducted. Patients were grouped into two cohorts (1) those who received clinical pharmacist care and (2) those who received usual care from a physician or advanced practice provider. The primary outcome evaluated the proportion of patients treated with the addition of a non-basal insulin medication. Type of medication changes or additions as well as change in A1C and change in weight were also analyzed. Outcomes were evaluated at six months post-index A1C. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were identified (n=129 in the usual care group and n=73 in the clinical pharmacist group). A non-basal insulin medication was added in 29% of patients receiving usual care versus 41% of patients receiving clinical pharmacist care (adjusted p=0.040). Usual care providers more frequently added metformin, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, while clinical pharmacists more frequently added prandial insulin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors. A1C decreased 1.6% in the clinical pharmacist group versus 0.9% in the usual care group (adjusted p=0.055). No significant change in weight was observed between the clinical pharmacist and usual care group (0.2 kg versus -1.0 kg, respectively; adjusted p=0.175). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy approaches to managing patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes varied between clinical pharmacists and other clinician providers. For patients already on basal insulin, clinical pharmacists were more likely to intensify therapy with the addition of non-basal insulin, including more frequent initiation of prandial insulin and by adding newer antihyperglycemic agents.