INTRODUCTION: It is important for health professional societies to involve members in defining their roles and future activities including research priorities. AIM: This study aimed to identify members' views on the areas of research that European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP) should prioritise in delivering research support, research projects and education. METHOD: An online questionnaire was initially developed by the ESCP Research Committee and reviewed by the research team. It included structured and open-ended items related to respondents' demographics, research experience, views on future research priorities, topics that ESCP should prioritise, and barriers to research involvement. After testing face and content validity, the questionnaire was sent to all ESCP members (N = 417). Descriptive statistics and summative content analysis were used. RESULTS: Eighty-two responses were received (response rate: 19.7%). Research on real-world processes that facilitate the implementation of clinical pharmacy services into every-day practice was the priority for most respondents (n = 77, 93.9%). Respondents believed that ESCP should focus on research support for implementation science (n = 52, 63.4%) and methods to analyse clinical judgement and decision-making (n = 48, 58.5%). The perceived barriers to developing high-quality research in clinical pharmacy were reported as a lack of knowledge, skills and training, limited funding opportunities and insufficient time. CONCLUSION: Research topics identified will help to inform ESCP and its committees on the priorities for research activities of the society in the near future, as well as other collaborating professional organisations of the current priority research objectives of ESCP in the international context.

• Keywords
• Barriers, Clinical pharmacist, European Society of Clinical Pharmacy, Research priorities,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines. AIM: To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument. METHOD: Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.

• Keywords
• Clinical pharmacy, Medication review, Medicines optimisation, Practice guidelines,
• MeSH
• Pharmacy * MeSH
• Communication * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Systematic Review MeSH
• Geographicals
• Australia MeSH
• Ireland MeSH

To better prepare for a potential future pandemic, it is important to investigate factors that influenced responses to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the present study was to investigate factors that influenced the decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected almost everyone throughout the world. Vaccines are a significant factor in managing a pandemic. As vaccines are developed, governments develop vaccine roll-out plans. Unfortunately, vaccine hesitancies can slow the implementation of any vaccine program. A question arises as to the factors that are associated with the decision to get vaccinated. The present study explored associations between vaccine hesitancy, and the Health Belief Model (HBM) in student samples from the Czech Republic, Israel, and the United States. From August, 2021 through December, 2021, an online survey was distributed in Czech, Hebrew, and English. A total of 447 participants completed the survey. A binomial logistic regression was conducted to ascertain the influence of perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers on the likelihood that participants are vaccinated. Results revealed that the factors of perceived severity and perceived benefits explained 52.6% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in vaccination. An analysis of Variance (ANOVA) found significant differences between countries for the 4 HBM factors. Based on these findings, it is recommended that policymakers put forth added emphasis on the severity of a virus and the benefits associated with the vaccine. Further, since there appears to be variability between countries in perceptions of the virus, and associated vaccine, governments should consider factors within their own environment when developing a strategy to combat a pandemic. More specifically, government could explore their own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as they develop a pandemic strategy. Additional practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

• Keywords
• COVID-19, health belief model, pandemic, vaccine hesitancy,
• MeSH
• COVID-19 * prevention & control   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Health Belief Model MeSH
• Pandemics MeSH
• Students MeSH
• COVID-19 Vaccines * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Names of Substances
• COVID-19 Vaccines * MeSH