Contemporary patient care requires a multidisciplinary approach to monitoring, assessing, and managing diseases. Promoting multidisciplinary approaches encourages the purposeful participation of many healthcare professionals and harnessing their combined knowledge to provide tailored treatment plans. Pharmacists, skilled and knowledgeable professionals in medication management, drug-related problems, and disease prevention, can offer vital interventions that contribute to improved patient outcomes. Advances in healthcare and information technology have expanded pharmacists' professional roles and made them essential in healthcare. Pharmacist-managed clinics (PMCs), an innovative healthcare approach, could potentially improve patient safety, satisfaction, accessibility, and affordability to quality healthcare. Spread across the healthcare continuum, pharmacists have a well-defined role in providing comprehensive pharmaceutical care and interprofessional collaboration, further reinforcing the necessity of establishing PMCs. This narrative review aims to compile and summarize information on PMCs from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar till December 2023. The PMC shortlist covers specialties such as cardiovascular, hematologic, endocrine, pain medicine, respiratory medicine, infectious diseases, gastrointestinal, nephrology, neurology, and oncology. Pharmacists in disease-specific PMCs have demonstrated improved treatment outcomes and access to specialty care. Additionally, based on peer-reviewed literature, the review also highlights how PMCs enhance the pharmacist's role in improving disease-specific outcomes, overall quality of care, and medication management. The inclusion criteria are randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and pre-post studies involving patients from cardiology, hematology, endocrinology, pain medicine, respiratory medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, nephrology, gastroenterology, and oncology specialties, focusing on pharmacist-driven clinics, published in English, and covering any geographical location. The exclusion criteria include review articles, proposed models, commentaries, editorials, and those published in languages other than English. Our findings reveal that PMCs are underutilized globally. PMCs work better in developed countries, possibly on account of robust healthcare infrastructure, adequate healthcare budgets, availability of trained pharmacists, and supportive regulatory environments. The review found that pharmacist-led interventions, such as medication monitoring and patient education, significantly enhance therapeutic outcomes. Pharmacist Managed Clinics improve affordability and acceptability, expanding healthcare access in outpatient and inpatient settings. This review also highlights the critical need for implementing PMCs to improve healthcare delivery, particularly in providing comprehensive and accessible services in developing countries.

Background: While considerable evidence supports the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, a sizable population expresses vaccine hesitancy. As per the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 hazards to global health. Vaccine hesitancy varies across countries, with India reporting the least vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy was higher toward COVID-19 booster doses than previous shots. Therefore, identifying factors determining COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitance (VBH) is the sine qua non of a successful vaccination campaign. Methodology: This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 standards. A total of 982 articles were pooled from Scopus, PubMed and Embase, while 42 articles that addressed the factors of COVID-19 VBH were finally included for further analysis. Result: We identified factors responsible for VBH and divided them into three major groups: sociodemographic, financial, and psychological. Hence, 17 articles stated age to be a major factor for vaccine hesitancy, with most reports suggesting a negative correlation between age and fear of poor vaccination outcomes. Nine studies found females expressing greater vaccine hesitancy than males. Trust deficit in science (n = 14), concerns about safety and efficacy (n = 12), lower levels of fear regarding infection (n = 11), and worry about side effects (n = 8) were also reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Blacks, Democrats, and pregnant women showed high vaccine hesitancy. Few studies have stated income, obesity, social media, and the population living with vulnerable members as factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. A study in India showed that 44.1% of vaccine hesitancy towards booster doses could be attributed dominantly to low income, rural origin, previously unvaccinated status, or living with vulnerable individuals. However, two other Indian studies reported a lack of availability of vaccination slots, a lack of trust in the government, and concerns regarding safety as factors for vaccine hesitancy toward booster doses. Conclusion: Many studies have confirmed the multifactorial nature of VBH, which necessitates multifaceted, individually tailored interventions that address all potentially modifiable factors. This systematic review chiefly recommends strategizing the campaign for booster doses by identifying and evaluating the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, followed by appropriate communication (at both individual and community levels) about the benefits of booster doses and the risk of losing immunity without them.

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing (PGx) plays a crucial role in improving patient medication safety, yet ethical concerns and limitations impede its clinical implementation in the primary care settings. Aims: To systematically review the current state of PGx in the primary care settings and determine the enablers and challenges of its implementation. Design: A scoping review was carried out by adhering to Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage methodological framework and the 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac et al. Data sources: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched up to 17 July 2023. Eligibility criteria: All peer-reviewed studies in English, reporting the enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx in the primary care settings were included. Date extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Information was synthesised based on the reported enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx testing in the primary care settings. Information was then presented to stakeholders for their inputs. Results: 78 studies discussing the implementation of PGx testing are included, of which 57% were published between 2019 and 2023. 68% of the studies discussed PGx testing in the primary care setting as a disease-specific themes. Healthcare professionals were the major stakeholders, with primary care physicians (55%) being the most represented. Enablers encompassed various advantages such as diagnostic and therapeutic benefits, cost reduction and the empowerment of healthcare professionals. Challenges included the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, insufficient training for healthcare professionals, ethical and legal aspects of PGx data, low patient awareness and acceptance and the high costs linked to PGx testing. Conclusion: PGx testing integration in primary care requires increased consumer awareness, comprehensive healthcare provider training on legal and ethical aspects and global feasibility studies to better understand its implementation challenges. Managing high costs entails streamlining processes, advocating for reimbursement policies and investing in research on innovation and affordability research to improve life expectancy.

Introduction: Vaccines are the best tools to end the pandemic, and their public acceptance is crucial in achieving herd immunity. Despite global efforts to increase access to vaccination, the World Health Organization explicitly lists vaccination hesitancy (VH) as a significant threat. Despite robust safety reports from regulatory authorities and public health advisories, a substantial proportion of the community remains obsessed with the hazards of vaccination. This calls for identifying and eliminating possible causative elements, among which this study investigates the inappropriate dissemination of medical literature concerning COVID-19 and adverse events following immunization (AEFI), its influence on promoting VH, and proposals for overcoming this problem in the future. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, using the keywords “adverse events following immunization (AEFI)”, “COVID-19”, “vaccines” and “hesitancy” and related medical and subjective headings (MeSH) up to 31 March 2022, and extracted studies relevant to the COVID-19 AEFI and associated VH. Finally, 47 articles were chosen to generate a narrative synthesis. Results: The databases depicted a steep rise in publications on COVID-19 AEFI and COVID-19 VH from January 2021 onwards. The articles depicted multiple events of mild AEFIs without fatal events in recipients. While documenting AEFIs is praiseworthy, publishing such reports without prior expert surveillance can exaggerate public apprehension and inappropriately fuel VH. VH is a deep-rooted phenomenon, but it is difficult to zero in on the exact reason for it. Spreading rumors/misinformation on COVID-19 vaccines might be an important provocation for VH, which includes indiscriminately reporting AEFI on a massive scale. While a number of reported AEFIs fall within the acceptable limits in the course of extensive COVID-19 vaccinations, it is important to critically evaluate and moderate the reporting and dissemination of AEFI in order to allay panic. Conclusions: Vaccination programs are necessary to end any pandemic, and VH may be attributed to multiple reasons. VH may be assuaged by initiating educational programs on the importance of vaccination, raising public awareness and monitoring the inappropriate dissemination of misleading information. Government-initiated strategies can potentially restrict random AEFI reports from lay epidemiologists and healthcare practitioners.

Objectives: To display virtual pharmaceutical care programs implemented by pharmacists across the world. Accordingly, a search in PubMed, Scopus and Embase with keywords such as ‘'Pharmacist', ‘Pharmaceutical care’, ‘Virtual platform’ and its associated medical subject headings retrieved appropriate articles. The quality of each filtered article were assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist.Key findings: A total of 2 14 841 articles were identified through database screening and 16 articles were extracted and finalized. Twelve papers presented different forms of electronic medical record-based virtual pharmacy systems that had significantly contributed to patient care; minimizing medication errors, rectifying adverse events, modifying drug administration patterns to reduce the fatality of drug–drug interaction and further promoting medication counselling. Nevertheless, few studies had social media platforms for providing clinical pharmacy services that depicted good patient satisfaction. Additionally, we were also able to portray community pharmacies that transformed themselves to provide better and easily accessible pharmaceutical care to their society.Summary: There are limited numbers of peer-reviewed articles on pharmacist-operated virtual systems. However, owing to the benefits imparted to patient safety and care by the virtual pharmacy in the era of pandemic, it is highly recommended that more pharmacy professionals contribute and implement such programs in their settings.Prospero Registration ID: CRD42022307175.

India’s vast and diverse population presents significant healthcare challenges owing to its scale, heterogeneity, and rapid growth. The Indian healthcare system, spanning the public, private, and non-profit sectors, shows marked inter-state variation in health indicators. Persistent gaps include variable quality of service, fragmented data, and uneven access to affordable care. Health information technology (HIT), particularly clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) integrated with electronic health records (EHRs), offers a path to more consistent evidence-based decisions. When implemented effectively, CDSSs can improve patient outcomes, reduce medical errors, and enhance quality through support for diagnosis, treatment, patient management, and prevention. Although India is rapidly adopting digital health tools, CDSS uptake remains limited because of infrastructure constraints, low awareness, data quality issues, integration challenges with EHRs, professional resistance, and insufficient training. Strategic action is required to overcome these barriers. Priorities include investment in robust IT infrastructure, comprehensive training programs, and public awareness initiatives, along with tighter integration of CDSSs with EHR platforms. With coordinated efforts by government agencies, healthcare institutions, and technology providers to address these barriers, India can leverage CDSSs to improve patient care and outcomes.