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

Abstract

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.