Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA · 2025
Association between state policies enabling pharmacist-led human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis and need for human immunodeficiency virus prevention: An ecological analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chandra Christina, Hamilton Chante, Young Henry N, Holland David P, Crawford Natalie D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Models of pharmacist-led pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services have been shown to effectively reach populations disproportionately affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Pharmacist prescriptive authority for PrEP varies across states, limiting the potential scale up of these models.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether states with the most restrictive policies were also the states that could benefit the most from expanded PrEP access.
METHODS: We classified U.S. states and the District of Columbia into 5 distinct policy categories ranked from most restrictive to least restrictive and estimated the association between these categories and the state PrEP-to-need ratio, the ratio of current PrEP users to new HIV diagnoses in the state.
RESULTS: Most states had restrictive policies that limit pharmacists' ability to initiate PrEP for their clients. States with the most restrictive policy of patient-specific collaborative practice agreements may be more likely to benefit from expanded PrEP access compared to states with the least restrictive policy (i.e., unrestricted authority/statute).
CONCLUSION: In the absence of a national strategy or policy to expand pharmacist-led PrEP, state-level efforts are needed to improve access to PrEP in pharmacies.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether states with the most restrictive policies were also the states that could benefit the most from expanded PrEP access.
METHODS: We classified U.S. states and the District of Columbia into 5 distinct policy categories ranked from most restrictive to least restrictive and estimated the association between these categories and the state PrEP-to-need ratio, the ratio of current PrEP users to new HIV diagnoses in the state.
RESULTS: Most states had restrictive policies that limit pharmacists' ability to initiate PrEP for their clients. States with the most restrictive policy of patient-specific collaborative practice agreements may be more likely to benefit from expanded PrEP access compared to states with the least restrictive policy (i.e., unrestricted authority/statute).
CONCLUSION: In the absence of a national strategy or policy to expand pharmacist-led PrEP, state-level efforts are needed to improve access to PrEP in pharmacies.