BACKGROUND:Pharmacy education has experienced substantial changes in educational guidance, professional priorities, and the broader policy environment surrounding social and cultural topics. However, little is known about how these changes have been reflected in pharmacy education scholarship over time. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in the presence, terminology, and contexts in which social and cultural topics were represented in U.S. pharmacy education, as reflected in titles presented at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy annual meetings. METHODS:A summative content analysis was conducted on titles from peer-reviewed research and education posters, school posters, and main conference programming at AACP Pharmacy Education meetings (2018-2025). Titles were analyzed to identify social and cultural content and characterize associated terminology and context codes, which were iteratively grouped into themes. Trend analyses included calculation of the proportion of relevant titles by year and format, as well as frequency analyses of terminology and context themes. RESULTS:Of 4410 conference titles, the proportion addressing social and cultural topics ranged from a low of 5.41% in 2019 to a peak of 16.78% in 2022 before declining, while remaining above levels observed during the early years of the study period. Diversity-, equity-, inclusion-, and anti-racism-related terminology peaked in 2022 and declined thereafter, whereas references to culture, social determinants of health, and special or vulnerable populations remained consistently represented. Teaching or curricular interventions and campus climate were the most frequently identified context themes, although titles related to campus climate-related titles declined following their 2022 peak. CONCLUSION:These findings provide a longitudinal perspective on the evolution of social and cultural discourse within U.S. pharmacy education.

Background: Race-based traumatic stress, or racial trauma, can negatively impact the health and wellbeing of Black health professionals. However, the effects of racial trauma among Black pharmacists have not been thoroughly explored. Objective: The purpose of this study is to explore Black pharmacist experiences of race-based traumatic stress and its effects in the workplace. Methods: This qualitative study utilized focus groups among a convenience sample of Black pharmacist attendees of a national convention for an organization dedicated to serving underserved communities and minoritized pharmacy professionals. The data were analyzed with inductive coding and thematic analysis as proposed by Braun and Clark. Results: Three focus groups were conducted with a total of 22 participants. The majority of participants were female (77%), and the average age of the participants was 48.3 years old. Three themes related to racial trauma were identified. The participants described racial trauma as an ever-present phenomenon, tension with coworkers and institutions, and internal and external structures of support. The Black pharmacists in this study provided context and recommendations for employers to support their wellbeing. Conclusions: An awareness of the hidden wounds that Black pharmacists carry with them to work every day is an important factor in creating diverse and inclusive workplaces. The results of this study give Black pharmacists a voice and a chance to share with colleagues their distinct realities. Employers and institutions should assess individual needs and implement strategies to support Black pharmacists in creating more inclusive work and professional environments. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Pharmacists Association.

Jacinda Abdul-Mutakabbir receives support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number K12HD113189. John Allen receives support from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) under Award Number U54CA233444. The content is solely the authors' responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Jacinda Abdul-Mutakabbir has also served on advisory boards and received an honorarium for Shionogi, GSK, NovaVax, CSL Seqirus, Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics, and AbbVie. She has also received research support from CSL Seqirus. Drs. Allen and Abdul-Mutakabbir are members of the JACCP Editorial Board. All other Authors have no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Allen is a member of the JACCP editorial board. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Objective. To determine, by survey, the inclusion of systemic racism education in US Doctor of Phar-macy (PharmD) curricula and identify barriers and facilitators to addressing this content. Methods. A survey was developed and distributed to curricular representatives at US colleges and schools of pharmacy. The survey assessed inclusion of systemic racism education in curricula, faculty involvement in teaching systemic racism content, barriers to adding systemic racism content in curricula, and future curricular plans. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for institutional background information, curricular content, and barriers to inclusion. Relationships between the inclusion of systemic racism content at public versus private programs were examined, and associations between traditional and accelerated programs were assessed.Results. Fifty-eight colleges and schools of pharmacy provided usable responses. Of the respondents, 84% indicated that teaching systemic racism content and its impact on health and health care was a low priority. For 24% of respondents, systemic racism content was not currently included in their curriculum, while 34% indicated that systemic racism content was included in one or more courses or modules but was not a focus. Despite systemic racism content being offered in any didactic year, it was rarely included in experiential curricula. Top barriers to inclusion were lack of faculty knowledge and comfort with con-tent and limited curricular space. No significant differences were found between program types. Conclusion. Based on the current level of systemic racism education and barriers to inclusion, faculty need training and resources to teach systemic racism concepts within pharmacy curricula. The inclusion of systemic racism concepts and guidance in the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education's Accreditation Standards could help to drive meaningful change and promote health equity.

Racism has been declared a public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted inequities in the US health care system and presents unique opportunities for the pharmacy Academy to evaluate the training of student pharmacists to address social determinants of health among racial and ethnic minorities. The social ecological model, consisting of five levels of intervention (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public policy) has been effectively utilized in public health practice to influence behavior change that positively impacts health outcomes. This paper adapted the social ecological model and proposed a framework with five intervention levels for integrating racism as a social determinant of health into pharmacy curricula. The proposed corresponding levels of intervention for pharmacy education are the curricular, interprofessional, institutional, community, and accreditation levels. Other health professions such as dentistry, medicine, and nursing can easily adopt this framework for teaching racism and social determinants of health within their respective curricula.

Racism has been declared a public health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted inequities in the US health care system and presents unique opportunities for the pharmacy Academy to evaluate the training of student pharmacists to address social determinants of health among racial and ethnic minorities. The social ecological model, consisting of five levels of intervention (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public policy) has been effectively utilized in public health practice to influence behavior change that positively impacts health outcomes. This paper adapted the social ecological model and proposed a framework with five intervention levels for integrating racism as a social determinant of health into pharmacy curricula. The proposed corresponding levels of intervention for pharmacy education are the curricular, interprofessional, institutional, community, and accreditation levels. Other health professions such as dentistry, medicine, and nursing can easily adopt this framework for teaching racism and social determinants of health within their respective curricula.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought attention and awareness to existing health disparities in underrepresented minority communities. Not only were minoritized populations disproportionately and negatively affected by COVID-19, but a history of mistrust and other systemic barriers prevented access to treatment and testing and even affected access and acceptance of the current vaccines. Pharmacists are essential to the provision of care for the general population, particularly during global crises. Minoritized pharmacists play an even greater role as partners with public health officials to translate science and build trust in minoritized community members who are hesitant about vaccine development, safety, and efficacy. Dedicated to representing the views and ideals of minority pharmacists on critical issues affecting health care, the National Pharmaceutical Association (NPhA) has been at the forefront of the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, NPhA has prioritized the role of underrepresented practitioners, striving to improve awareness and access to underrepresented communities. While delivering education and information about the COVID-19 vaccine, clinical trials, population prioritization, and federal funding to our service areas and target populations, NPhA continues to challenge health care myths and address historical conflicts and systemic racism that often dictate the access to treatment and quality health care.

Objective To analyze the ethnic and racial diversity of faculty in pharmacy, medicine, and dentistry in the United States and suggest how the pipeline for pharmacy academe can be diversified.Methods A retrospective analysis of the representativeness of faculty at schools and colleges of pharmacy was compared to that in schools and colleges of medicine and dentistry. The range of ethnic and racial diversity across top schools of pharmacy, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and newer schools of pharmacy was evaluated for both faculty and students for the year 2019-2020. The ethnic and racial diversity in residency and fellowship programs along with graduation rates provided insight into the available pipeline for future pharmacy faculty.Results Faculty in pharmacy, medicine, and dentistry demonstrated similarly low representation of underrepresented minorities (URMs) compared to their composition within the US population. Dentistry had the largest percentage of URMs (13.9%), compared with 8.5% in pharmacy and 7.1% in medicine. Five HBCUs contributed 32.8% of all Black faculty, yet their graduates had comparatively low residency match rates. The ratio of URM students to non-URM students in post-PharmD and graduate training programs is lower than the ratio of URM students to non-URM students in pharmacy programs.Conclusion Lack of access to postgraduate residency or fellowship training programs is a major barrier to progression to pharmacy academe and impacts URMs more significantly. Barriers to advanced training must be removed or decreased to create the needed diverse faculty candidates for pharmacy academe. Without intervention, students in pharmacy programs will be primarily trained by non-URM faculty, which may impact how graduates provide care in an increasingly diverse patient population.

Ten recommendations to increase Black representation within pharmacy organization leadership John M Allen, PharmD, BCPS, BCCCP, FCCM, FCCP, John M Allen, PharmD, BCPS, BCCCP, FCCM, FCCP Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Orlando, FL, USA Address correspondence to Dr. Allen (john.allen@cop.ufl.edu). Twitter: @JohnAllenPharmD Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Jacinda C Abdul-Mutakabbir, PharmD, MPH, AAHIVP, Jacinda C Abdul-Mutakabbir, PharmD, MPH, AAHIVP Department of Pharmacy Practice, Loma Linda University School of Pharmacy, Loma Linda, CA, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Hope E Campbell, PharmD, BCPS, Hope E Campbell, PharmD, BCPS Department of Pharmacy Practice, Belmont University College of Pharmacy, Nashville, TN, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Lakesha M Butler, PharmD, BCPS Lakesha M Butler, PharmD, BCPS Department of Pharmacy Practice, Southern Illinois University – Edwardsville School of Pharmacy, Edwardsville, IL, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Volume 78, Issue 10, 15 May 2021, Pages 896–902, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxab077 Published: 11 March 2021

With 118,000 cases in 114 countries and 4291 global mortalities, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The origins were believed to be from Wuhan, China, and SARS CoV-2, a coronavirus, was quickly identified as the causative organism. Researchers at the National Institute of Health Vaccine Research Center identified the spike protein as the critical portion of the virus that allows for attachment to human cells. In just 66 days after identifying the genetic sequence, the first COVID-19 vaccine candidate began the enrollment of human subjects into a Phase I clinical trial. This accelerated effort was due to a collective and collaborative global response. Currently, one COVID-19 vaccine has been approved and two others have received an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Thus, there has been a clear comparison of the COVID-19 response efforts and that which was utilized in addressing the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) epidemic. For over four decades, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has been historically defined by a disproportionate number of infections and related mortalities amongst racially and ethnically minoritized individuals, including those that identify as homosexual. While novel drug therapies have been developed for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; there have been key components employed amid the global health response to COVID-19, that have been absent from the management of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Majorly, the development and availability of vaccine against HIV/AIDS. Many of the ideas and initiatives that have resulted in a positive COVID-19 response and the eventual successful vaccination development; have been those learned from the trial and error of mitigating increasing global rates of HIV/AIDS infections. Hence, the question remains as to whether the lessons and approaches learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, namely vaccination development, will be applied to managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Herein, we aim to compare the HIV/AIDS epidemic and COVID-19 pandemic, by describing how the fight against HIV/AIDs equipped global scientific leaders with effective strategies to overcome future public health crises (COVID-19), discuss the ethical considerations associated with the differences in the global health responses to the HIV/ AIDS epidemic versus the COVID-19 pandemic, and finally, identify lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that can be applied to the quest for an HIV/AIDS vaccine..

OBJECTIVE:To describe the disproportionality of racial and ethnic people of color (i.e., minorities) among the student body in schools and colleges of pharmacy (COPs) compared to county-specific United States Census Bureau data.METHODS:Data were obtained from national databases and published reports from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. In addition, demographic information for enrollees of minority-serving institutions and predominantly white institutions was obtained and racial disproportionality was assessed to determine the degree of concordance between enrollees and the demographics of people within the county that the school was located. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics.RESULTS:Compared to the general population in counties where COPs are located, Asians are over-represented while all other students of color are underrepresented. The top schools that have a negative disproportionality rate for Black students included Thomas Jefferson University (-40.49), Wayne State University (-40.13), Philadelphia College of Pharmacy (-39.90), and the University of Tennessee (-39.74).The top five schools that have a negative disproportionality rate of Hispanic students included Loma Linda University (-45.67), California Health Sciences (-45.64), the University of Southern California (-43.79), the University of the Pacific California (-37.95), and Texas Southern University (-36.65). The enrollments within most COPs do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the counties in which they are located.CONCLUSIONS:To meet the healthcare needs of an increasingly diverse population, each institution should establish a strategic plan for increasing diversity and evaluating and adopting best practices.

Objective. To describe the representation of racial and ethnic minorities among faculty members (faculty) in schools and colleges of pharmacy (COP) compared to US Census Bureau data; to evaluate the representation of racial and ethnic minorities in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), newer doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs, and PharmD programs with a religious affiliation compared with all pharmacy programs; and to compare racial and ethnic pharmacy faculty data to trends in medical and dental schools, and all higher education.Methods. Information was obtained from national databases and published reports; data was comparatively evaluated.Results. Compared to the general population, Asians are overrepresented in pharmacy, while all other minority groups are underrepresented. The HBCUs, newer schools, and religious-affiliated institutions have greater numbers of African American/Black faculty. Newer schools also have better representation of Hispanic faculty. Pharmacy has been more successful than medicine and dentistry in recruiting African American/Black faculty, but lag behind dental schools in their representation of Hispanic faculty.Conclusion. To meet the health care needs of the population, we recommend the implementation of short-term and long-term diversity and inclusion strategies that address minority representation in COP.

The American College of Clinical Pharmacy charged a Task Force on Research in Special Populations to review, update, and broaden its 1993 White Paper on Women as Research Subjects. Participants of the task force included pharmacy clinicians and investigators in the field. This resulting White Paper, Research in Women and Special Populations, discusses the current concepts regarding the conduct of research in women, as well as in special populations such as children, elderly, minorities, cognitively impaired, and other vulnerable populations (e.g., prisoners and refugees). For each specific population, the barriers to research participation, current guidelines and regulations, and available recommendations to address these barriers are discussed. The participation in research by these populations requires addressing special social and ethical challenges. Clinical pharmacy researchers should be cognizant of these guidelines and be an advocate for the inclusion and the rights of women and special populations in research participation.