Cargando…

Opportunities to Increase Access to HIV Prevention: Evaluating the Implementation of Pharmacist-Initiated Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in California

BACKGROUND: Pharmacies are a promising setting through which to expand access to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, including pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP, respectively). We aimed to evaluate and inform the implementation of California's Senate Bill 159 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hunter, Lauren A, Packel, Laura J, Chitle, Pooja, Beltran, Raiza M, Rafie, Sally, De Martini, Loriann, Dong, Betty, Harris, Orlando, Holloway, Ian W, Miyashita Ochoa, Ayako, McCoy, Sandra I
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10651201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38023549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad549
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Pharmacies are a promising setting through which to expand access to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, including pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP, respectively). We aimed to evaluate and inform the implementation of California's Senate Bill 159 (2019), allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe PrEP and PEP. METHODS: From October through December 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 919 California pharmacists and pharmacy students, primarily recruited via the email listservs of professional organizations. Participants completed an online survey assessing the implementation of pharmacist-initiated PrEP/PEP, including knowledge, attitudes, practices, perceived barriers, and implementation preferences elicited through a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Among 919 participants (84% practicing pharmacists, 43% in community pharmacies), 11% and 13% reported that pharmacists at their pharmacy initiate PrEP and PEP, respectively. Most believed that pharmacist-initiated PrEP/PEP is important (96%) and were willing to provide PrEP (81%); fewer (27%) had PrEP/PEP training. Common implementation barriers were lack of staff/time and payment for pharmacist services. Participants preferred PrEP implementation models with in-pharmacy rapid oral HIV testing and pharmacists specifically hired to provide PrEP services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pharmacists’ supportive attitudes, Senate Bill 159 implementation in California pharmacies remains limited, in part due to policy-level and organizational-level barriers. Ensuring PrEP/PEP-related payment for services and sufficient workforce capacity is key to leveraging pharmacists’ role in HIV prevention.