How new pharmacists handled COVID-19 misinformation: A qualitative study

Abstract

Background

New pharmacists, PharmD graduates of 2020 and 2021, faced the unique challenge of entering the workforce during the volatile and divisive COVID-19 pandemic. They had to navigate patient-driven misinformation while adapting to evolving roles, including the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines. Understanding the experiences of new pharmacists during this period is crucial for professional development and patient care.

Objective

The study aimed to describe new pharmacists’ experiences of handling COVID-19 vaccine misinformation presented by patients.

Methods

Semi-structured Zoom interviews were conducted with PharmD 2020 and 2021 graduates recruited from St. John’s University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy until saturation was achieved. Interview questions were based on constructs of the Hearing, Understanding, Interpreting, Evaluating, Remembering, and Responding model and World Health Organization (WHO) algorithm on how to respond to vocal vaccine deniers. Data analysis was performed through deductive thematic content analysis, and findings were reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.

Results

A total of 13 interviews were conducted, with 61.5% of participants from St. John’s University and 38.5% from UM. They worked in various pharmacy settings, including independent (30.8%), chain (23.0%), long-term care (15.4%), and ambulatory care/hospital pharmacies (30.8%). The types of COVID-19 misinformation new pharmacists heard during the pandemic align with the techniques and topics of anti-vaccine arguments outlined by the WHO’s algorithm. New pharmacists utilized evaluation skills to identify credible sources and information, interpreted patients' language and sources, and assessed patients' willingness to be corrected. All new pharmacists responded to misinformation regardless of the technique or topic; however, the mechanism of response may have differed depending on whether a technique or topic was presented.

Conclusions

This baseline understanding of new pharmacists’ practices in managing health misinformation can inform the development of recommendations for health misinformation management and assist pharmacy schools in identifying areas for further training for student pharmacists.