MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA · 2026
Drone-supported medication delivery as a rural pharmacy access strategy: A scoping review of logistics, regulation, and pharmacist integration.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Manne Nandini, Coustasse Alberto, Kimble Craig, Simonton David, Pile Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rural and socially vulnerable communities often face medication access barriers driven by distance, limited transportation, terrain, weather, and gaps in local delivery infrastructure. Drone-supported delivery has been proposed as a way to move medications and health supplies to hard-to-reach areas, but its role within pharmacist-supervised care remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review examined evidence on drone-supported medication and health supply delivery in relation to rural access, implementation feasibility, regulation, and pharmacy practice.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidance. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for sources published from January 2010 through April 2026. Grey literature from government agencies, regulatory organizations, professional groups, and health systems was also reviewed. Eligible sources addressed drone or unmanned aerial vehicle delivery of medications or health-related supplies, or implementation issues relevant to drone-enabled health care delivery.
RESULTS: The original search yielded 31 evidence sources. A targeted revision-stage check for pertinent literature published by the April 30, 2026 cutoff identified two additional eligible peer-reviewed studies yielding 33 evidence sources: 17 drone-specific and 16 contextual. Five additional references supported review reporting or conceptual framing and were not counted as evidence sources. Drone-specific evidence primarily addressed operational feasibility, delivery reach, route performance, delivery time, logistics, user acceptance, and regulatory considerations. Evidence evaluating medication adherence, pharmacist counseling workflows, clinical outcomes, patient experience, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, or equity impact remained limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Drone-supported delivery is best understood as an emerging logistics adjunct rather than an independent pharmacy care model. Current evidence supports technical feasibility in selected settings but does not establish clinical, economic, or equity impact. Future studies should evaluate drone delivery within pharmacist-supervised workflows that include verification, patient identification, counseling, documentation, medication security, temperature management, and regulatory compliance.
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review examined evidence on drone-supported medication and health supply delivery in relation to rural access, implementation feasibility, regulation, and pharmacy practice.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidance. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for sources published from January 2010 through April 2026. Grey literature from government agencies, regulatory organizations, professional groups, and health systems was also reviewed. Eligible sources addressed drone or unmanned aerial vehicle delivery of medications or health-related supplies, or implementation issues relevant to drone-enabled health care delivery.
RESULTS: The original search yielded 31 evidence sources. A targeted revision-stage check for pertinent literature published by the April 30, 2026 cutoff identified two additional eligible peer-reviewed studies yielding 33 evidence sources: 17 drone-specific and 16 contextual. Five additional references supported review reporting or conceptual framing and were not counted as evidence sources. Drone-specific evidence primarily addressed operational feasibility, delivery reach, route performance, delivery time, logistics, user acceptance, and regulatory considerations. Evidence evaluating medication adherence, pharmacist counseling workflows, clinical outcomes, patient experience, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, or equity impact remained limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Drone-supported delivery is best understood as an emerging logistics adjunct rather than an independent pharmacy care model. Current evidence supports technical feasibility in selected settings but does not establish clinical, economic, or equity impact. Future studies should evaluate drone delivery within pharmacist-supervised workflows that include verification, patient identification, counseling, documentation, medication security, temperature management, and regulatory compliance.