Physician Attitudes Towards Pharmacist-Prescribed HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP): A Survey of a State Medical Association.

Autor: Scarnati K; University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA. Kaylee.scarnati@rockets.utoledo.edu., Esser KL; University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA., Sim JM; University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA., Vaidya V; University of Toledo College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA., Sahloff E; University of Toledo College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA., Duggan J; Department of Infectious Disease, University of Toledo Medical Center, University of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of community health [J Community Health] 2024 Dec 04. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Dec 04.
DOI: 10.1007/s10900-024-01421-x
Abstrakt: Timely initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) is crucial in preventing HIV infection and advancing efforts to end the HIV epidemic (EHE). nPEP must be administered within 72 h of high-risk exposure, ideally within 24 h. Pharmacies may play a role in increasing access to nPEP and facilitating referrals for additional care, such as PrEP. Recent legislation permits pharmacist-prescribed nPEP (PDP), though provider attitudes toward this change have not been studied. A survey querying physicians and medical trainees (students and residents) was conducted in 2024 during an annual state medical association conference. The survey included 24 questions on nPEP knowledge and attitudes towards pharmacist-prescribed nPEP (PDP). The survey was administered in person using electronic tablets, with voluntary participation incentivized by a monetary reward. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS (9.4 version) software, with differences in responses between physicians and trainees evaluated. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Of 89 respondents (56% of attendees), 61 were physicians and 28 were trainees. Notably, 28% of licensed providers indicated that pharmacist-directed prescribing (PDP) should not be allowed in the State of Ohio, while no trainees expressed this same opposition (p = 0.001). Trainees were more likely to view pharmacist prescribing as safe and appropriate ((p = 0.0135, p = 0.013). Urban-based providers were more supportive of pharmacist prescribing than their rural counterparts (p = 0.0195). Trainees showed little opposition to PDP, whereas physicians expressed concerns about safety and appropriateness. Addressing these concerns is essential for integrating pharmacists into the EHE strategy.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: