Repurposing Immunopharmacology to Inculcate Pharmacist’s Professional Identity Formation in a Doctor of Pharmacy Program

Abstract

Immunology and Immunopharmacology courses offer multiple opportunities to bridge didactic and theoretical exposition to “hands‐on” practice and application. In the United States, the Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) is the entry‐level degree to practice as a pharmacist. In a majority of the four‐year PharmD programs, Immunology is taught in the first two professional years, followed by pharmacotherapeutic applications in the third year, while students are on clinical rotations in the final year. Student readiness for clinical rotations and patient‐centered care is critical though difficult to inculcate, especially from the perspective of their ability to integrate foundational science knowledge with practice. However, predictably, the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic has focused learners’ attention on several foundational science‐related aspects of Immunology and Immunopharmacology such as vaccine production techniques, immune cell responses to the SARS‐CoV‐2, the concepts of antigen presentation and processing, and the use of many immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of COVID‐19. Here, we leveraged the topical relevancy of COVID‐19 to engage pharmacy students in our third‐year PharmD Immunology course to devise strategies for overcoming vaccine hesitancy. Using published review articles assigned as pre‐reading assignments in our Team Based Learning pedagogy, we introduced 19 third‐year student teams composed of 5‐6 pharmacy students to complex social‐behavioral barriers to vaccination. The specific reasons for vaccine hesitancy included were 1) lack of awareness of vaccines, 2) fear and mistrust of vaccines, 3) distrust of health care professionals, 4) misinformation specific to COVID‐19 vaccines, 5) faith‐based and personal reasons for vaccine hesitancy, 6) misinformation about COVID‐19, and 7) historical reasons such as the Tuskegee experiment for the prevailing mistrust in African American communities. Next, using a design thinking approach, student teams were asked to formulate and present in class a potential solution to alleviate each of these vaccine hesitancy reasons in the setting of a community pharmacy. Following one week of preparation time after the initial posting of the review article, in two three‐hour‐long class sessions, student teams were divided into “anti‐vaxxers” and “pro‐vaxxers” and teams debated each of the vaccine hesitancy reasons using specific data and examples from the review articles, also examining the effect of the prevailing state and federal laws in the United States on vaccine outcomes. Student teams offered 1) patient education, 2) counseling, 3) partnership with local community leaders, 4) researching literature on vaccine side effects such as those related to autism or the anaphylaxis due to albumin in older influenza vaccines, and 5) sponsored awareness programs such as “walk for COVID” as novel mechanisms for overcoming barriers to vaccination. Student perception surveys indicated 90% of the students found the activity interesting, engaging, and challenging, while 93% found it an effective use of their time. 98% of students felt that the activity helped them appreciate their professional identity as future pharmacists while allowing them to apply foundational science knowledge to overcome problems encountered in real‐life situations.