Pharmacies are important health care access points, but no national map currently exists of where pharmacy deserts are located. This cross-sectional study used pharmacy address data and Census Bureau surveys to define pharmacy deserts at the census tract level in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. We also compared sociodemographic characteristics of pharmacy desert vs non-pharmacy desert communities. Nationally, 15.8 million (4.7%) of all people in the United States live in pharmacy deserts, spanning urban and rural settings in all 50 states. On average, communities that are pharmacy deserts have a higher proportion of people who have a high school education or less, have no health insurance, have low self-reported English ability, have an ambulatory disability, and identify as a racial or ethnic minority. While, on average, pharmacies are the most accessible health care setting in the United States, many people still do not have access to them. Further, the people living in pharmacy deserts are often marginalized groups who have historically faced structural barriers to health care. This study demonstrates a need to improve access to pharmacies and pharmacy services to advance health equity.

Background: Studies have identified the positive impact of community pharmacist patient care services. Identifying the most effective implementation strategies and performing robust research are critical to sustaining evidence‐based patient care in this setting. This systematic review aimed to describe: (1) implementation strategies, and (2) dissemination and implementation (D&I) outcomes used to evaluate the implementation of patient care services in community pharmacies. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched for articles that were: (1) written in English and published in 1985 or later, (2) described a peer‐reviewed empirical study or practice experience implementing a patient care service in a community pharmacy, and (3) described the strategies used to implement and/or evaluate the implementation of the service. Two investigators reviewed the abstract, and full‐text when necessary, of each article to assess eligibility. Data were extracted from each article by two investigators using a standardized form. Implementation strategies were categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) study terminology. The D&I outcomes were classified using the Proctor and colleagues terminology. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Two hundred and thirty‐seven articles were included, 223 of which described at least one implementation strategy and 224 described at least one D&I outcome. “Train and educate stakeholders” and “engage consumer” were the most common and “provide interactive assistance” and “adapt and tailor to context” were the least commonly reported implementation strategies. Reach, acceptability, and adoption were the most common and fidelity and sustainability were the least commonly evaluated D&I outcomes. Most studies used quasi‐experimental or observational designs. Conclusions: This systematic review used published manuscripts to identify the breadth and depth of implementation and evaluation strategies being utilized in various community pharmacies. Findings suggest opportunities for further research and innovation via collaboration between pharmacists and implementation practitioners and researchers.