English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background An expanding body of literature shows that pharmacists’ interventions improve health outcomes and are cost-saving. However, diverse state regulations of pharmacists’ scope of practice create a discrepancy between what pharmacists are trained to do and what they legally can do. This study investigated how stakeholders utilized research evidence when developing expanded scope of practice policies in their respective states. Methods Using autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority as a surrogate for general pharmacist scope of practice, a general policy document analysis was performed to understand the scope of practice landscape for pharmacists across the United States. Next, semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and pharmacy advocates were conducted to explore how the identified states in the policy document analysis utilized evidence during the policy-making process. Investigators analysed findings from the transcribed interviews through application of the SPIRIT Action Framework. Resulting codes were summarized across themes, and recommendations to researchers about increasing utilization of research evidence were crafted. Results Sixteen states with 27 autonomous pharmacist prescriptive authority policies were identified. Public health need and safety considerations motivated evidence engagement, while key considerations dictating utilization of research included perceptions of research, access to resources and experts, and the successful implementation of similar policy. Research evidence helped to advocate for and set terms for pharmacist prescribing. Barriers to research utilization include stakeholder opposition to pharmacist prescribing, inability to interpret research, and a lack of relevant evidence. Recommendations for researchers include investigating specific metrics to evaluate scope of practice policy, developing relationships between policy-makers and researchers, and leveraging pharmacy practice stakeholders. Conclusions Overall, alignment of researcher goals and legislative priorities, coupled with timely communication, may help to increase research evidence engagement in pharmacist scope of practice policy. By addressing these factors regarding research engagement identified in this study, researchers can increase evidence-based scope of practice, which can help to improve patient outcomes, contain costs, and provide pharmacists with the legal infrastructure to practise at the top of their license.

health research policy and systems

Use of research evidence varied in efforts to expand specific pharmacist autonomous prescriptive authority: an evaluation and recommendations to increase research utilization