Community pharmacists' attitudes toward and practice of pharmacy-based harm reduction services in Pittsburgh, PA: a descriptive survey.

BACKGROUND

In Pittsburgh, PA, legal changes in recent decades have set the stage for an expanded role for community pharmacists to provide harm reduction services, including distributing naloxone and non-prescription syringes (NPS). In the wake of the syndemics of the COVID-19 pandemic and worsening overdose deaths from synthetic opioids, we examine knowledge, attitudes, and practices of harm reduction services among community pharmacists in Pittsburgh and identify potential barriers of expanded pharmacy-based harm reduction services.

METHODS

We provided flyers to 83 community pharmacies within a 5-mile radius of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to recruit practicing community pharmacists to participate in an anonymous electronic survey. We used a 53-question Qualtrics survey consisting of multiple-choice, 5 or 6 point-Likert scale, and open-ended questions adapted from 5 existing survey instruments. Survey measures included demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of harm reduction services (specifically naloxone and NPS provision), and explored self-reported barriers to future implementation. Data was collected July-August 2022. We conducted descriptive analysis using frequencies and proportions reported for categorical variables as well as means and standard deviations (SD) for continuous variables. We analyzed open-ended responses using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight community pharmacists responded to the survey. 90% of participants agreed pharmacists had a role in overdose prevention efforts, and 92% of participants had previously distributed naloxone. Although no pharmacists reported ever refusing to distribute naloxone, only 29% always provided overdose prevention counseling with each naloxone distributed. In contrast, while 87% of participants had positive attitudes toward the usefulness of NPS for reducing disease, only 73% of participants ever distributed NPS, and 54% had refused NPS to a customer. Participants endorsed a lack of time and concerns over clientele who used drugs as the most significant barriers to offering more comprehensive harm reduction services.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight that while most community pharmacists have embraced naloxone provision, pharmacy policies and individual pharmacists continue to limit accessibility of NPS. Future expansion efforts for pharmacy-based harm reduction services should not only address the time and labor constraints identified by community pharmacists, but also fear-based policy and stigma toward people who inject drugs and harm reduction more broadly.