Evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses: a scoping review

Background: Vaccinations are successful, cost-effective tools to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Many colleges conduct vaccination campaigns on their campuses for various vaccinepreventable diseases, including measles, mumps, influenza, HPV, and most recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. Implementing these campaigns requires substantial effort and understanding their effectiveness is an important factor in justifying these programs. Aim: This scoping review aims to identify, review, and summarize existing evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses in order to provide evaluation guidance for institutions planning future vaccination campaigns.Methods: Publications that focused on vaccination campaigns on college campuses for students and/or faculty and staff and described their evaluation methods were included in our analysis. A systematic search of the literature identified 2,101 articles. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and references searched, 43 articles were identified for full-text review. Sixteen articles provided evaluation information and were systematically reviewed. Results: Interventions targeted a variety of vaccine-preventable diseases, with the majority either aiming to increase HPV vaccine uptake or vaccinate against meningococcal serogroups. Most studies reported on campaigns that included both educational activities and provided vaccinations. Evaluation methods varied widely. Some studies measured vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine uptake was most commonly measured as a simple count of doses administered. Conclusions: College campus vaccination campaigns are evaluated in multiple ways, with little consistency inhowthe effectiveness of campaigns are measured. There is a need to develop clear evaluation methods for college vaccination programs, especially how to calculate vaccination rates associated with these efforts

Implementing Health Sciences After-School Programming for Mississippi High School Students: the Impact of Social Determinants of Health

Corresponding author (Pharmacy Administration): Saara Nasruddin, [email protected]://egrove.olemiss.edu/pharm_annual_posters_2022/1013/thumbnail.jp

Inspiring Minds, Exploring Science with Project SCORE Curriculum

Corresponding author (Pharmacy Administration): Tess Johnson, [email protected]://egrove.olemiss.edu/pharm_annual_posters_2022/1009/thumbnail.jp

Health Matters: Student-Developed Research Questions by Project SCORE Students

Corresponding author (Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management): Melissa Presley, [email protected]://egrove.olemiss.edu/pharm_annual_posters_2022/1015/thumbnail.jp

New Pharmacist Practitioner Experiences of Listening and Responding to Patient-Driven Misinformation

Background/Objectives The infodemic, layered with partisan politics and unsubstantiated medical claims, placed pharmacists in a position to not only have to actively stay up-to-date on developing COVID-19 information but also COVID-19 misinformation. While pharmacists are taught which sources to trust for guidance on public health concerns, it is unclear how new pharmacist practitioners (NPP) were prepared and able to handle patient-driven misinformation. The primary objective of this study is to describe NPP experiences of handling COVID-19-related misinformation presented by patients. Methods The study included semi-structured interviews over Zoom with a sample population of St. John’s University (SJU) and University of Mississippi (UM) PharmD 2020 and 2021 graduates recruited through purposive and snowball sampling until saturation was met. Participants received a $25 Amazon gift card for a 30-minute semi-structured interview. Interview questions were based on the constructs of the HURIER model and constructs of the WHO algorithm on how to respond to vocal vaccine deniers. Data was analyzed by deductive thematic content analysis with three coders and the HURIER model and the WHO algorithm were employed as a guiding framework. Results A total of 13 interviews were completed. Eight participants (61.5%) graduated from SJU (Queens, NY) and five (38.5%) graduated from UM (Oxford, MS). Participants worked in independent (30.8%), chain (23.0%), long-term care (15.4%), and ambulatory care/hospital pharmacies (30.8%). The types of COVID-19 misinformation NPP heard during the pandemic aligns with the techniques and topics of anti-vaccine arguments outlined by the WHO’s algorithm. Evaluation skills of identifying reputable sources and information, along with interpretation of patients’ language tone, and sources, were used to identify misinformation and patients’ willingness to be corrected on the misinformation. All NPP responded to misinformation regardless of the technique or topic of misinformation. However, the mechanism of response may have differed depending on whether a technique of misinformation or topic of misinformation was presented. Implications As new recommendations around health misinformation management are being developed, this baseline knowledge of NPP misinformation management practices can 1) guide communication researchers to test the effectiveness of these mechanisms used to responding to misinformation in practice 2) help schools and colleges of pharmacy understand which areas of communication student pharmacists need further training in