Next Article in Journal
Developing Medication Reviews to Improve the Aruban Healthcare System: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Student Stress, Coping, and APPE Readiness at Two Public Institutions before and during the Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
How Do Pharmacists Distribute Their Work Time during a Clinical Intervention Trial?—A Time and Motion Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nutrition’s Role in Quality Healthcare in the United States: Opportunities and Education for Pharmacists to Take a Bite of the Apple and Strengthen Their Skills
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Redesigning Pharmacy to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Expanding Retail Spaces for Digital Therapeutics to Replace Consumer Products That Increase Mortality and Morbidity Risks

1
Department of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
2
College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
3
Independent Researcher, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
4
The Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmacy 2024, 12(4), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040107
Submission received: 29 May 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 9 July 2024 / Published: 12 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pharmacy: State of the Art and Perspectives in USA (2nd Edition))

Abstract

:
United States healthcare outcomes, including avoidable mortality rates, are among the worst of high-income countries despite the highest healthcare spending per capita. While community pharmacies contribute to chronic disease management and preventive medicine, they also offer consumer products that increase mortality risks and the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and depression. To resolve these contradictions, our perspective article describes opportunities for major pharmacy chains (e.g., CVS Pharmacy and Walgreens) to introduce digital health aisles dedicated to prescription and over-the-counter digital therapeutics (DTx), together with mobile apps and wearables that support disease self-management, wellness, and well-being. We provide an evidence-based rationale for digital health aisles to replace spaces devoted to sugar-sweetened beverages and other unhealthy commodities (alcohol, tobacco) that may increase risks for premature death. We discuss how digital health aisles can serve as marketing and patient education resources, informing customers about commercially available DTx and other technologies that support healthy lifestyles. Since pharmacy practice requires symbiotic balancing between profit margins and patient-centered, value-based care, replacing health-harming products with health-promoting technologies could positively impact prevention of chronic diseases, as well as the physical and mental health of patients and caregivers who visit neighborhood pharmacies in order to pick up medicines.

1. Introduction

Despite the highest healthcare spending per capita, the United States (US) healthcare systems underperform compared to other high-income countries [1]. One of several performance and outcome indicators that need improvement in the US is the mortality rate [1]. As illustrated in Figure 1, the US has had a remarkably small improvement in avoidable mortality compared to 10 other high-income countries. These findings coincide with deteriorating life expectancy in the US [2,3]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 60% of adult Americans have at least one chronic disease [4]. In addition to the high economic burden of chronic diseases, they also are the leading causes of death, disability, and poor health in the US [4,5]. Some challenges associated with reducing chronic disease prevalence and burden are healthcare affordability, accessibility, and inequality [6,7].
To reduce preventable causes of premature death in the US, the CDC recommends several strategies including “environmental approaches that promote health and support healthy behaviors” [5]. As shown in Figure 1, poor outcomes of reducing preventable mortality in the US require more alignment of multiple stakeholders to promote health by creating indoor and outdoor environments that foster healthy lifestyles. With respect to pharmacy care, some examples of misalignment include the selling and price-based promotion of liquor in pharmacy stores (Figure S1) [8,9,10], while the CDC reported that “Excessive alcohol use was responsible for about 178,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2020–2021” [11].
Pharmacies selling health-harming food, beverages, and/or tobacco products can create ethical and professional dilemmas among pharmacists [12,13], as can be seen through several legislative efforts to ban these sales in pharmacies [14]. Even though (1) tobacco and alcohol consumption are the leading causes of preventable death in the US, and (2) the American Pharmacists Association has a policy opposing sales of alcohol and tobacco in pharmacies, many retail pharmacies continue to offer these products to their consumers [9].
Pharmacy practice has expanded from counting and dispensing in retail settings to working in diverse clinical and healthcare settings, including chronic disease management [15], psychosocial support [16], point-of-care testing [17], clinical diagnostics [18], awareness campaigns [19], and public health interventions [20,21]. Pharmacists have a special relationship with their patients, allowing them to better counsel and educate them not only on medicines, but also on disease prevention [20,22,23]. Driven by the emergence and clinical validation of digital health technologies, this article connects two aspects of how pharmacists in the US might improve avoidable mortality rates by (1) expanding access to digital health technologies that support chronic disease management and prevention, and (2) eliminating sales of consumer products that increase mortality risks.

2. Digital Health Technologies for Improving Healthcare Outcomes

Digital health is a broad category of technologies that include digital therapeutics (DTx, mobile medical apps), mobile health (mHealth) apps, wearable devices, health IT, telehealth, and telemedicine. Digital health technologies are intended to improve healthcare outcomes through better diagnosis, management, and prevention of medical conditions. In order to advance the development and implementation of these technologies into healthcare, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established the Digital Health Center of Excellence [24]. Additional resources that promote digital health technologies include The Digital Medicine Society, The Digital Therapeutics Alliance, and the Digital.Health online platform.
DTx are mobile medical apps that received regulatory clearance as “Software as a Medical Device” (SaMD) products for the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of medical conditions [25,26,27,28,29,30]. SaMD is defined as “software intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device” [24]. DTx obtain the FDA’s authorization as class I or II medical devices using 510(k) clearance, exempt, or de novo regulatory pathways and can be classified into two main categories: (1) prescription digital therapeutics (PDTs) that require a prescription from a healthcare provider, and (2) over-the-counter (OTC) digital therapeutics that can be purchased online without a prescription. DTx products that pose a low risk for patients can also be marketed under the FDA enforcement discretion policy. DTx include such technologies as web-based, mobile, or virtual reality (VR) apps and video games.
Digital health technologies, including DTx, provide clinically meaningful benefits for diverse chronic medical conditions, such as low back pain, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), diabetes, insomnia, migraine, substance use disorder, heart failure, depression, anxiety, rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), etc. [27,31,32,33,34,35,36]. As illustrated in Table 1, RelieVRx is an example of an FDA-authorized PDT that uses a VR system to reduce the severity of chronic low back pain (CLBP) [37,38,39]. Examples of OTC DTx and PDT are EndeavorOTC and EndeavorRx, video game apps that can improve focus and cognitive functions in adults and pediatric patients with ADHD, respectively [40,41,42]. According to marketing from Akili Interactive, playing these therapeutic video games in two “six-week doses” separated by a one-week interval can lead to the best outcomes [42]. The WellDoc digital health platform supports self-management of cardiometabolic diseases, including prescription and OTC DTx for diabetes types 1 and 2.
Other categories of digital health technologies are wearables, neurotech, and wellness apps, intended to promote healthy lifestyles and improve health outcomes [43,44,45]. For example, physical activity trackers such as Apple Watch, Fitbit, Garmin, and Galaxy Watch can improve physical activity, mental health, and other health outcomes [46,47,48,49]. Incorporating Fitbit into daily lifestyle interventions significantly lowered the risks associated with sleep apnea, obesity, depression, diabetes, and hypertension [50]. Some of these technologies are at the nexus of medical devices and consumer health products. For example, Samsung Electronics received FDA authorization for the Samsung Health Monitor app to detect signs of obstructive sleep apnea via the Galaxy Watch [51]. Apple Watch combined with the StrivePD app received FDA clearance for monitoring symptoms of Parkinson’s disease [52]. The Oura ring is a consumer product worn on the finger intended to work with an app to monitor heart rate, body temperature, blood oxygen, sleep and physical activity patterns, and women’s health. The Oura ring can accurately measure sleep time, sleep onset latency, time spent in deep and light sleep, and wake after sleep onset [53]. Digital health products also include non-invasive vagal nerve stimulators, such as Nurosym, or Hinge Health Enso, a wearable that delivers high-frequency impulse therapy for pain [54]. Table 1 provides examples of DTx and other digital health and wellness technologies that can improve health outcomes.
Table 1. Examples of digital health technologies intended to improve health outcomes. PDT, prescription digital therapeutic; OTC, over-the-counter; AI, artificial intelligence.
Table 1. Examples of digital health technologies intended to improve health outcomes. PDT, prescription digital therapeutic; OTC, over-the-counter; AI, artificial intelligence.
ProductsType of ProductHealthcare OutcomesReferences
RelieVRxFDA-cleared virtual reality system as PDT intended for treatment of chronic low back painLong-term, non-opioid pain reduction in adults with moderate to severe chronic low back pain[39,55,56,57]
Welldoc App, BlueStarFDA-cleared PDT and OTC DTx mobile apps that provide support and digital coaching for patients with diabetes, prediabetes, heart failure, and hypertensionDiabetic patients experienced a statistically significant improvement in hemoglobin A1c levels [58,59]
EndeavorOTC,
EndeavorRx
OTC DTx and PDT mobile game designed to treat and improve attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children and adults using a series of video gamesImprovements in attention, multi-tasking, and cognitive function for adults with ADHD. PDT version was also effective for pediatric ADHD[41,60,61]
Daylight by Big HealthCBT-based mobile app marketed for generalized anxiety disorder under the FDA enforcement discretion Long-lasting improvement of generalized anxiety [62,63]
SleepioDigital CBTi intervention for insomnia marketed under FDA enforcement discretionImproves irregular sleeping patterns. Has shown effectiveness in improving sleep quality in working adults and adolescents [64,65,66,67]
RejoynFDA-cleared adjunct PDT for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD)Improvement of depressive symptoms for MDD patients who take antidepressants [68]
Samsung Galaxy WatchFDA-cleared wearable for sleep trackingSupports management and monitoring of sleep, sleep score, and time asleep [69]
Oura ringConsumer wearable for monitoring sleep and general healthSupports healthy lifestyle by monitoring sleep, physical activity, heart rate, and overnight blood oxygen level [53,70]
FitbitConsumer activity tracker includes an FDA-cleared detection of irregular heart rhythms as signs of atrial fibrillationMonitoring and promoting physical activity, heart health, and sleep to support healthy lifestyles [50,71,72,73,74]
Muse EEG headbandConsumer wearable, EEG-based biofeedback headband. Marketed as “at-home biofeedback training” deviceMonitoring and improving mental well-being, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms, and cognitive functions [75,76,77,78,79,80]
NurosymNon-invasive vagal neurostimulation device, certified medical device in EuropeImproved heart rate variability, reduction of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) symptoms[81,82]
Nerivio FDA-cleared, non-invasive neurostimulation wearable targeting inhibitory pain pathwaysProvides pain relief, migraine treatment and prevention[83,84,85,86,87]
Digital health technologies are being recognized for enhancing pharmacy care [88,89,90,91,92,93,94]. There are apparent benefits of integrating DTx with drug-based therapies, such as better therapy adherence and outcomes [31,95,96,97,98,99]. For example, adjunct DTx reSET-O improves cost-effectiveness and treatment outcomes of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder [98,99,100,101]. Connecting insulin-delivery devices with continuous glucose monitoring systems offers better diabetes management [102,103,104]. Mobile apps can also improve medication adherence in people with diabetes [105,106]. The FDA draft guidelines on “prescription drug use-related software” support the development of drug+digital combination therapies [31,107]. We recently reviewed how digital therapeutics can improve the effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs and biologics using the drug–device combination product approach [31]. Rapid developments in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to precision medicine support broader adoption of digital technologies for better healthcare outcomes [108].

3. Redesigning Retail Pharmacy Spaces for Digital Health Technologies

The physical environment and professional image of community pharmacy spaces impact both visiting customers and working pharmacy staff [109]. Many community pharmacies share a similar structure: a pharmacy counter with a few windows open for patients to drop off and pick up their prescriptions and a store section containing aisles of OTC medicines, dietary supplements, consumer health products, and various snacks and beverages. The general layout of most pharmacies funnels patients and other customers through the aisles while guiding them to the counter to pick up medicines. If their prescription medicines are not ready, some patients wander the pharmacy, browsing the available products. Patients waiting in line or in the waiting area for their prescriptions might occupy their time by looking at OTC medicines and all other products that are displayed in adjacent aisles.
Herein, we describe opportunities to redesign aisles to offer digital health technologies to those who visit community pharmacies. As illustrated in Figure 2, such modifications to a retail space would require changing the standard layout of the pharmacy space. Digital health aisles would ideally be situated close to the pharmacy counter. The aisles containing the digital therapeutic products may be organized by disease state, similar to over-the-counter medicines. For example, a digital health aisle for diabetes would showcase products that can improve glycemic control and diabetes management, including glucose monitoring apps, insulin titration and delivery apps, nutrition and physical activity apps [110,111,112], and even therapeutic video games [113]. To optimize the consumer experience and education about these new technologies, interior design and displays can be similar to those used in consumer electronics retail shops (e.g., Best Buy and Apple Stores). Pharmacy customers could access demos and purchase consumer-grade and OTC digital health apps by scanning associated QR codes that direct them to specific websites (analogous to the affiliate marketing mechanism). Some aisles may have digital display screens or VR headsets for customers to use. Here, customers can use the headsets to experience some digital therapeutics, such as RelieVRx, and test whether or not the product is right for them. Mobile applications such as EndeavorOTC could be advertised by allowing customers to try out select games on the display screen. These interactive and entertaining displays would serve as a way to engage customers with a product they might have otherwise ignored [114].
Other aisles could be dedicated to the prevention and treatment of diverse mental health conditions, chronic pain, arthritis, and other chronic diseases. In addition to diverse DTx products, pharmacies can offer digital health and consumer products that support disease self-management and healthy lifestyles. Fitness apps and activity trackers can serve as patient empowerment tools for people living with chronic conditions to exercise regularly and improve sleep hygiene [44,115,116]. Consumer-grade wearables, such as the Muse EEG headband, offer a means for biofeedback and mindfulness-based interventions to improve mental health [79,117,118,119]. Digital health aisles can not only serve as a method of promoting and selling DTx, but also provide patients with an opportunity to learn about diverse non-pharmacological approaches to disease management and prevention. To offer digital health products that are of the highest quality with respect to clinical validation, effectiveness, functionality, user experience, cybersecurity and privacy protection, retention, and other important features, pharmacies may collaborate with appropriate professional associations such as the Digital Therapeutics Alliance, the Digital Medicine Society, and the Digital.Health platform.

4. Digital Health Aisles Support Patient Education and Marketing

Since community pharmacies are uniquely positioned to promote healthy lifestyles [120], introducing digital health aisles into the pharmacy space would facilitate educating patients and all visiting customers on available digital health technologies. Pharmacy lines are known to be quite long (for example during seasonal flu seasons), and posters can offer patients information to interact with to occupy their time. Health education and promotion posters and boards have been effectively used in the waiting rooms of medical offices in an attempt to educate patients while they wait [121,122]. Posters are also used in community pharmacies to promote vaccinations [123]. Studies show that posters, displays, and leaflets positively affect health education, provided they are in a location where the patient will have an extended amount of time to look at them and visit regularly [124,125]. As illustrated in Figure 2, posters and displays across the digital health aisles can provide a catching visual aid that will deliver patient education and marketing of digital health technologies. Allowing the patient to see the poster and view it for an extended period every time they come into the pharmacy will increase the number of times they think about the DTx and will prompt the patient to ask more about it [124].
Wall posters, electronic and printed displays, and leaflets are a great way to impact consumer buying behaviors [126], as well as to educate them about the diversity and benefits of DTx and other digital health technologies. This “marketing as education” approach in retail pharmacies would likely accelerate dissemination of the related knowledge among health professionals [127,128,129]. Examples of such posters and displays are shown in Figure 3. These posters provide brief information about DTx such as EndeavorOTC for adult ADHD, RelieVRx for chronic low back pain, and Big Health apps for insomnia and anxiety.
Placing digital health aisles close to the pharmacy service counter will encourage patient interaction with DTx products and allow pharmacists to engage with patients showing interest in specific displays. This would allow pharmacists to provide recommendations for (1) patients who may be taking multiple medicines for one disease state and would benefit from using a DTx to help manage their condition, (2) elderly patients who look for digital tools to improve their cognitive functions and physical health, (3) caregivers of children living with chronic conditions, and (4) caregivers of people living with cognitive disabilities. Providing opportunities for a pharmacist to educate often skeptical patients and recommend digital interventions will increase awareness and use of DTx. As elaborated later, community pharmacies that disseminate evidence-based information about digital health to their consumers could become “digital health education hubs”. From the public health perspective, pharmacies may prioritize patient education and marketing of digital health technologies that support cardiovascular and metabolic health, chronic pain management, smoking cessation, substance use disorder management, and management of other mental health conditions.
Pharmacists’ expertise in counseling patients on their medicines and monitoring therapy presents a timely opportunity to expand the digital health skills of pharmacy staff [130,131,132,133]. Since telehealth and digital health products such as continuous glucose monitoring devices already exist, pharmacists can deepen their abilities to interpret and apply their knowledge to help patients with digital interventions [88]. Therefore, educating healthcare professionals, such as pharmacists, is an important part of implementing DTx into healthcare [130]. Providers need to be knowledgeable about DTx and other digital health technologies so that they can effectively explain their benefits, how to use them, and how they work. Ultimately, educating healthcare providers on DTx means they will be well equipped and qualified to educate patients that will benefit the most from using DTx and increase positive outcomes in patients’ lives [134].

5. Pharmacies Selling Consumer Products That Increase Mortality Risks

Despite challenges for the US healthcare systems to reduce chronic diseases, some retail pharmacies sell consumer products that increase risks for chronic diseases and premature death. In doing so, these pharmacies enable health-harming industries to target Americans who visit them [135,136,137]. For example, retail pharmacies sell alcohol and tobacco products that are recognized as the leading cause of preventable death in the US [9]. Given that over 480,000 people in the US die from cigarette smoking each year [138], offering tobacco products in pharmacies is a stark contradiction to the efforts of healthcare professionals who work towards saving lives [139,140]. While CVS Health discontinued selling tobacco products in 2014 [141], other retail pharmacies, e.g., Walgreens, continue to offer tobacco products. It is noteworthy that pharmacies in the US are engaged in cigarette promotions including discount pricing, multi-pack, and cross-product promotions [142]. This study also found that “Cigarette promotions were observed in 94.0% of pharmacies, more than any other retailer type (e.g., convenience stores: 82.0%, tobacco stores: 77.0%)” [142], while other studies show positive effects of pharmacist-delivered smoking cessation interventions [143,144,145,146].
Similarly, despite the CDC reporting that about 178,000 Americans died in a year (2020–2021 data) from alcohol-related causes [11], many retail pharmacies sell alcoholic beverages including spirits, wine, and beer [8,10] (see also Figure S1 in the Supplementary Materials). According to the National Institute of Health, over 10% of people age 12 and older in the US have alcohol use disorder (AUD) [147]. While some retail pharmacies sell alcoholic beverages, clinical pharmacists are involved in screening patients for alcohol use disorder and facilitating access to AUD treatments [18,148]. Alcohol is classified as a dependence-producing substance and Group 1 carcinogen, and is recognized for causing several types of cancer and its contribution to cancer-related preventable deaths in the US [149,150]. Alcohol-related deaths significantly contribute to total deaths in the US [151].
In addition to selling alcohol and tobacco, some US pharmacies also sell and endorse (through promotional pricing) sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) [13,152,153,154], creating a potential negligence to protect their customers, given a growing body of evidence that SSB consumption can increase both mortality and morbidity risks [155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163]. National pharmacy chains can reach SSB sales of estimated 100 million transactions per year (Figure S2, Supplementary Materials). Several longitudinal studies show that higher consumption of SSBs is associated with higher risks for premature death due to cardiovascular diseases and cancer, as summarized in Table 2. Malik and colleagues found that consuming two or more SSBs per day increased the risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) by 31% [156]. Higher SSB consumption is positively associated with higher risks of developing cancer and cancer-related mortality [164]. Of equal importance to public health are correlations between SSB intake and obesity [165], diabetes [166,167,168], and mental health [169,170,171,172]. Alcaraz and colleagues evaluated 40 different articles and 18 different models suggesting that policy intervention is crucial to decrease the 184,000 deaths worldwide annually attributed to consumption of SSBs [158].
To further spotlight the relationships between the consumption of SSBs and their health-harming effects, Figure 4 illustrates data from five different studies that used Cox’s proportional hazard ratio (CHR) to investigate the impacts of drinking more than two SSBs per day when compared to the control group of drinking one SSB or less per month (see also Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials). It is apparent that higher SSB consumption increases the risks of premature death, digestive and circulatory disorders, and various cancers. This is of particular importance to the 96 million Americans who are prediabetic, 38 million Americans who live with diabetes [178], and 127 million Americans who live with CVDs [179].
While negatively impacting mortality, addiction, and the obesity epidemic, distributing SSBs, alcohol, and tobacco products in community pharmacies (1) defies the commitment to improving healthcare outcomes; (2) suggests a failure to be more proactive in protecting vulnerable individuals from preventable deaths, as reminded by the national opioid settlement agreement signed by three major chain pharmacies, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart, in 2022 [180,181,182]; (3) contributes to the negative environmental impact of healthcare and pharmaceutical industries [183,184,185], and (4) may create a mistrust between publicly traded chain pharmacies, shareholders, and the public with respect to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting on making people and communities healthier. From the “good faith” perspective, these aforementioned aspects are even more applicable to pharmacies owned by healthcare companies (e.g., CVS Health Corporation, Woonsocket, Rhode Island) that also offer healt h insurance through managed healthcare companies (e.g., Aetna, Hartford, Connecticut), while owning pharmacy benefit management companies (e.g., CVS Caremark, Woonsocket, Rhode Island) that profit from selling prescription drugs.
In May 2024, CVS Pharmacy launched “the WellMarket™” portfolio of consumer health-focused beverages and food, resonating with opportunities for voluntary changes in chain pharmacy stores to improve the food environment [13]. In June 2024, the Milken Institute published the report “Catalyzing Action for Pharmacist-Provided Food Is Medicine Care” describing a rationale and actionable recommendations to implement the Food Is Medicine program delivered through local pharmacies [186]. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores also promotes health and wellness innovation in pharmacies [187]. Involvement of patient advocacy groups such as the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as professional groups such as the American Pharmacists Association and the American Public Health Association, can further accelerate the transformation of pharmacies towards replacing health-harming beverages and ultraprocessed food with health-promoting technologies.

6. Transforming Pharmacies to Improve Healthcare and Public Health Outcomes

The commercial determinants of health require pharmacies to balance profitability, social responsibility, and value-based care [188,189,190]. An example of profit-driven practices is the contribution of pharmacy benefit managers to the high prices of prescription drugs [191,192]. Rising healthcare costs and the economic burden of chronic diseases prompted some innovative pharmacy initiatives, e.g., “Flip the Pharmacy” practice transformation [193,194,195], embracing digital health [196,197], and a pharmacist-provided “Food Is Medicine” care program [186]. To further address the contributions of pharmacists to improve health outcomes, herein we reason that (1) selling and marketing digital health technologies in retail pharmacies may improve both therapies and prevention of chronic diseases, and (2) eliminating sales of sugar-sweetened beverages may improve prevention of chronic diseases and mortality.
Eliminating sales of SSBs and other health-harmful products in profit-driven pharmacies is a challenge that would require the same corporate social responsibility motives that led to the elimination of tobacco products from CVS Pharmacy chains in 2014 [190]. Point-of-sale warnings about the harmful effects of beverages are unlikely to change consumers’ awareness, as shown by alcohol–cancer association labels via Proposition 65 policy in California [198]. Scaling up and expanding the scope of tobacco-free pharmacy law would require coordinated efforts of all stakeholders [14,199,200]. Strict liability and negligence cases against pharmacies selling unsafe food that can cause illness and premature death would require multiple plaintiffs to prove direct causation or show that SSBs are “unreasonably dangerous”. Promoting health-harming beverages in pharmacies can be interpreted as deceptive practices targeting vulnerable customers who trust pharmacists as healthcare professionals helping them to improve their health. Therefore, to protect consumers, the Federal Trade Commission may foster self-regulation of pharmacies through advisory opinions suggesting ceasing promotional pricing of SSBs and alcohol. SSB taxes intended to improve public health by reducing SSB consumption can lead to higher prices and lower sales of these beverages [201,202,203]. However, these price-based interventions are implemented only in several cities across the US. It is important to emphasize that both the tobacco-free pharmacy law and the discontinuation of tobacco sales by CVS Pharmacy resulted in positive public health outcomes [141,204,205,206].
As illustrated in Figure 5, we propose transforming retail pharmacy practice by trading health-harming products with health-promoting digital technologies. While redesigning pharmacy spaces applies to retail pharmacies, offering digital health technologies in online pharmacies is also viable. These perspectives are already reflected in such developments as Walgreens partnering with digital health companies, e.g., Hinge Health, a digital care company for musculoskeletal conditions, Propeller Health, a precision digital care platform, and Sanvello, a mental health app marketed for stress, anxiety, and depression [207]. Benefits for digital health companies to distribute their products through pharmacies are (1) endorsement of their technologies being sold through healthcare professionals, (2) increased brand awareness and marketing through over 30,000 chain pharmacy stores (and more through independent community pharmacies), and (3) increased public awareness facilitating broader adoption of their technologies in healthcare and the general public. To increase sales, pharmacy chains can develop consumer-centered omnichannel marketing and distribution for digital health technologies that are integrated with the use of prescription and OTC medicines. Opportunities to embrace digital health in pharmacies can also be complemented by scaling up telepharmacy services and point-of-care testing [196,208,209,210,211,212,213]. These “new” products and services could mitigate revenue and profit margin changes resulting from discontinuing sales of SSBs, alcohol, and tobacco products.
It was estimated that CVS Health lost approx. USD 2B in yearly revenues by discontinuing tobacco sales [190,214]. While revenue losses from discontinuing sales of SSBs, alcohol, and tobacco in pharmacies are hard to evaluate due to the lack of sales data, trading health-harming commodities with health-promoting digital health technologies would lessen the financial impact of such corporate decisions. It is noteworthy that the US market size for digital health varies in estimates from USD 89B to USD 133B (2022 data) and is projected to grow substantially [215,216]. On the other hand, sales of SSBs have been steadily declining [217].
The value proposition for replacing health-harming products with digital health technologies can be driven by joint venture partnerships between pharmacies and accountable care organizations. For example, drug-based managements of cardiovascular conditions and diabetes can be improved with less consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, while Ozempic, naltrexon, and antidepressants work better when patients are empowered to increase physical activity, rather than when being exposed to counterproductive cues such as ultraprocessed foods and alcohol products offered in pharmacies. Since the FDA has enabled development of “prescription drug use-related software” products, pharmacies that quickly evolve to distribute digital health technologies may gain competitive advantage over retail pharmacies that retain the current portfolio of products and services.
In addition, pharmacies may boost their sales and revenues through cross-promotions of digital health technologies together with OTC medicines (e.g., low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attack and stroke, or NSAID analgesics for chronic pain), vaccinations (e.g., the shingles vaccine), dietary supplements (e.g., multivitamin–mineral supplements and vitamin D), and in vitro diagnostic products (e.g., at-home testing kit Lucira® for the simultaneous detection of COVID-19 and flu A/B viruses). Offering fitness trackers, sleep monitoring wearables, and wellness apps in pharmacies may increase their revenues from the global wellness market estimated USD 1.5 trillion [218].
To further increase customer engagement, satisfaction, and retention, community pharmacies may become known as “digital health education hubs”, where clients obtain evidence-based knowledge and the latest updates about the benefits of health-promoting digital technologies. Such digital health education centers can be created in collaboration with the Digital Therapeutics Alliance, the Digital Medicine Society, and the Digital.Health platform, while being sponsored by integrated health systems, such as Intermountain Health, Kaiser Permanente, Trinity Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, HCA Healthcare, and Universal Health Services, as well as by biotech, pharmaceutical, and pharmacy benefit management companies through their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment arms.
Smaller community pharmacies that do not belong to major chains could benefit from lawmakers increasing the budget for the CDC’s chronic disease prevention and health promotion programs that would financially incentivize transformation of their retail spaces towards digital health technologies, while eliminating sales of health-harming products. There is also a potential role for philanthropic organizations that support health equity, public health, and biomedical research, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, to expand their programs towards digital health promotion through grants awarded to local pharmacies.

7. Limitations and Challenges

While this perspective article describes opportunities and benefits of selling digital health technologies in retail pharmacies instead of health-harming products such as SSBs, alcohol, and tobacco, we acknowledge the real-world limitations of this work. For example, digital health technologies are rapidly evolving, presenting retailers with the challenges of selling products that may be discontinued or require frequent software updates to optimize their effectiveness. Since distribution channels and reimbursement processes for DTx have been evolving [219], payment strategies and affiliate marketing require complex financial arrangements between digital health companies and wholesale/retail sellers.
DTx and other digital health technologies are relatively new, creating a skepticism among healthcare professionals about the level of clinical validation and effectiveness as compared to other therapeutic modalities. Barriers to adoption of digital health technologies also include digital health literacy, health literacy, and the socioeconomic status of consumers [220,221,222], thus potentially discouraging pharmacies from offering these new products to their customers. Pharmacists will require additional education through future digital health certification programs in order to counsel patients and caregivers about OTC DTx and PDTs being offered in their pharmacies [90,223,224]. The International Pharmaceutical Federation reported that many pharmacy and pharmaceutical education programs lack digital health education [130], while the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy recognizes needs to integrate digital health education into the PharmD curriculum [225]. Currently, pharmacists can utilize educational resources provided by the Digital Therapeutics Alliance, the Digital Medicine Society, and the Digital.Health platform, as well as receive certifications from several digital health online courses.
For store-within-a-store pharmacy operations, it would be difficult to eliminate SSB, alcohol, and tobacco sales, since such retail spaces sell food, beverages, and prescription drugs under one roof. In such circumstances, shelves containing SSBs, alcohol, and tobacco can also display information about health risks associated with these products [226,227,228,229]. California has a policy requiring point-of-sale warnings that exposure to alcohol increases the risk of cancer, while Ireland is the first country that requires informing consumers about “the direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” using health warning labels [230,231]. Discontinuing sales of health-harming products is also associated with challenges like financial interests (commercial determinants of health and lobbying) that may interfere with a timely response to the growing evidence of the negative impact of SSBs on individual and public health [232,233,234,235].
Navigating the major transformation of pharmacy practice was delineated in the report on “Catalyzing Action for Pharmacist-Provided Food Is Medicine Care” published by the Milken Institute [186]. It is reasonable to extend such transformation strategy towards “Pharmacist-Provided Digital Health Care”, resulting in more integrative pharmacy care that can improve the mortality and morbidity rates in the US and worldwide. The foremost changes require aligning interests of all stakeholders, including pharmacy leadership, healthcare systems, advocacy groups, trade associations, the digital health industry, healthcare providers, public health professionals, investors, caregivers, and patients.

8. Conclusions

There is a need to address a costly paradox and discrepancy between the highest healthcare spending per capita and the highest rates of avoidable mortality in the US compared to other high-income countries. Drug discovery, development of DTx, and other medical innovations are insufficient to combat chronic diseases, unless there are concurrent efforts to reduce their preventable and self-inflicted causes. To this end, our perspective article describes a rationale for redesigning retail pharmacy spaces to improve US healthcare outcomes by trading sales of health-harming products with health-promoting digital technologies.
“As healthcare systems work under increasingly dynamic and resource-constrained conditions, evidence-based strategies are essential to ensure that research investments maximize healthcare value and improve public health” [236]. A growing body of evidence challenges pharmacies to reach a decision point of either continuing or discontinuing sales of SSBs, due to the increased risks for premature death, cancer, CVDs, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. Like for tobacco and alcohol products, there is no rationale for SSBs to be offered and promoted through pricing in pharmacies. At the same time, a growing body of evidence on clinically meaningful benefits of digital health technologies offers pharmacies opportunities to expand their revenue sources and profit margins by offering digital therapeutics (OTC DTx and PDT), mobile apps, and wearables supporting disease self-management and healthy lifestyles. Market competition, self-regulation, and growing public awareness about the pros and cons of digital health tech versus SSBs will determine how quickly retail pharmacies will evolve, adopt, and promote digital transformation towards precision healthcare [45,237,238,239,240].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pharmacy12040107/s1: Figure S1: An example of alcohol aisles in a national retail pharmacy in the US; Figure S2: The number of sugar-sweetened beverages sold through 75 pharmacies belonging to a national pharmacy chain. The plot was generated based on data published in [154]; Table S1: CHRs from five different review articles used to create a graph shown in Figure 4.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.B.; literature review, analysis, and writing—original draft preparation, G.B., M.C., B.J., W.L., K.P. and A.R.; concept design of retail pharmacy, S.K. and G.B.; review, editing, and revisions, G.B., M.C., B.J., S.K., W.L., K.P. and A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the ALSAM Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

G.B. acknowledges a funding award from the ALSAM Foundation to support this project. G.B. would like to thank the University of Utah Print and Mail Services for their graphic design assistance with the preparation of Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Images used in Figure 3 were from free stock photos, except the “Child Playing EndeavorRx” photo offered for media via the Akili Interactive website. We thank Paul Frame from The Commonwealth Fund for the original image and permission to use it in Figure 1. We greatly appreciate comments and suggestions from the reviewers. G.B. thanks Mark Gottlieb and Daniel Malone for helpful comments. Names of many companies and their commercial products described here have registered trademarks and copyright protection.

Conflicts of Interest

G.B. is a founder and owner of OMNI Self-care, LLC (Salt Lake City, UT, USA), a health promotion and consulting company supporting evidence-based self-care solutions. G.B. is a co-inventor on two issued US patents, 9,569,562 and 9,747,423, “Disease Therapy Game Technology” and the patent-pending application “Multimodal Platform for Treating Epilepsy”. These patents are related to digital health technologies, and are owned by the University of Utah. G.B. is an employee of the University of Utah. During this research project, K.P., A.R., B.J., and W.L. worked as part-time research assistants at the University of Utah. The University of Utah has a financial agreement with PepsiCo (Harrison, AR, USA), a maker of sugar-sweetened beverages. Through a third party, the University of Utah has also intellectual property rights and an advertising agreement with Anheuser-Busch (Harrison, AR, USA), a maker of alcoholic beverages. M.C. works as a part-time pharmacy intern in a community pharmacy. B.J. works as a part-time pharmacy intern in the Intermountain Medical Center. W.L. works as a part-time pharmacy intern in CVS Pharmacy. K.P. works as a part-time pharmacy intern at the University of Utah Redwood Health Center. The remaining authors declare the absence of potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Schneider, E.C.; Shah, A.; Doty, M.M.; Tikkanen, R.; Fields, K.; Williams, R.D., II. Reflecting Poorly: Health Care in the US Compared to Other High-Income Countries; The Commonwealth Fund: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Woolf, S.H.; Schoomaker, H. Life expectancy and mortality rates in the United States, 1959–2017. JAMA 2019, 322, 1996–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Woolf, S.H. Falling Behind: The Growing Gap in Life Expectancy Between the United States and Other Countries, 1933–2021. Am. J. Public Health 2023, 113, 970–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Chronic Disease. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2024/23_0267.htm (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  5. Bauer, U.E.; Briss, P.A.; Goodman, R.A.; Bowman, B.A. Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: Elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA. Lancet 2014, 384, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Galvani, A.P.; Parpia, A.S.; Foster, E.M.; Singer, B.H.; Fitzpatrick, M.C. Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA. Lancet 2020, 395, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dickman, S.L.; Himmelstein, D.U.; Woolhandler, S. Inequality and the health-care system in the USA. Lancet 2017, 389, 1431–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Corelli, R.L.; Aschebrook-Kilfoy, B.; Kim, G.; Ambrose, P.J.; Hudmon, K.S. Availability of tobacco and alcohol products in Los Angeles community pharmacies. J. Community Health 2012, 37, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Corelli, R.L.; Chai, T.; Karic, A.; Fairman, M.; Baez, K.; Hudmon, K.S. Tobacco and alcohol sales in community pharmacies: Policy statements from U.S. professional pharmacy associations. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2014, 54, 285–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kotecki, J.E. Sale of alcohol in pharmacies: Results and implications of an empirical study. J. Community Health 2003, 28, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Alcohol and Public Health. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  12. Gellatly, S.; Moszczynski, A.; Fiedeldey, L.; Houle, S.; Smith, M.; Ogbogu, U.; Rudman, D.; Minaker, L.; Shelley, J. “No one went into pharmacy … to sell a lot of Coca-Cola. It’s just sort of a necessary evil”—Community pharmacists’ perceptions of front-of-store sales and ethical tensions in the retail environment. Explor. Res. Clin. Soc. Pharm. 2023, 11, 100312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wilking, C.; Gottlieb, M.A.; Rickles, N. The role of chain pharmacies to promote healthy food retail: Current trends, legal limits, and policy opportunities. Health Mark. Q. 2019, 36, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Katz, M.H. Banning tobacco sales in pharmacies: The right prescription. JAMA 2008, 300, 1451–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mossialos, E.; Courtin, E.; Naci, H.; Benrimoj, S.; Bouvy, M.; Farris, K.; Noyce, P.; Sketris, I. From “retailers” to health care providers: Transforming the role of community pharmacists in chronic disease management. Health Policy 2015, 119, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rens, E.; Scheepers, J.; Foulon, V.; Hutsebaut, C.; Ghijselings, A.; Van den Broeck, K. Building Bridges between Pharmacy and Psychosocial Care: Supporting and Referring Patients with Psychosocial Needs in a Pilot Study with Community Pharmacists. Int. J. Integr. Care 2023, 23, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chan, J.T.N.; Nguyen, V.; Tran, T.N.; Nguyen, N.V.; Do, N.T.T.; van Doorn, H.R.; Lewycka, S. Point-of-care testing in private pharmacy and drug retail settings: A narrative review. BMC Infect. Dis. 2023, 23, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Snyder, S.; Butala, N.; Williams, A.M.; Kneebusch, J. Pharmacist-Driven Alcohol Use Disorder Screening May Increase Inpatient Utilization of Extended-Release Naltrexone: A Single Center Pilot Study. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pinto, S.; Kotschevar, C.; Hunt, A.; Middendorf, A.; Robbins, C.; Miller, E.; Van Gilder, D. Impact of a public health awareness campaign on patients’ perceptions of expanded pharmacy services in South Dakota using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Pharmacy 2022, 10, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Thomson, K.; Hillier-Brown, F.; Walton, N.; Bilaj, M.; Bambra, C.; Todd, A. The effects of community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions on population health and health inequalities: A review of reviews. Prev. Med. 2019, 124, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brown, T.J.; Todd, A.; O’Malley, C.; Moore, H.J.; Husband, A.K.; Bambra, C.; Kasim, A.; Sniehotta, F.F.; Steed, L.; Smith, S.; et al. Community pharmacy-delivered interventions for public health priorities: A systematic review of interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management, including meta-analysis for smoking cessation. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e009828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Saramunee, K.; Dewsbury, C.; Cutler, S.; Mackridge, A.J.; Krska, J. Public attitudes towards community pharmacy attributes and preferences for methods for promotion of public health services. Public Health 2016, 140, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Valliant, S.N.; Burbage, S.C.; Pathak, S.; Urick, B.Y. Pharmacists as accessible health care providers: Quantifying the opportunity. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2022, 28, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. The US Food and Drug Administration, Digital Health Center of Excellence. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  25. Shuren, J.; Patel, B.; Gottlieb, S. FDA Regulation of Mobile Medical Apps. JAMA 2018, 320, 337–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Shuren, J.; Doraiswamy, P. Digital therapeutics for MCI and Alzheimer’s disease: A regulatory perspective—Highlights From The Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference (CTAD). J. Prev. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2022, 9, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Patel, N.A.; Butte, A.J. Characteristics and challenges of the clinical pipeline of digital therapeutics. Npj Digit. Med. 2020, 3, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Hong, J.S.; Wasden, C.; Han, D.H. Introduction of digital therapeutics. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2021, 209, 106319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Watson, A.; Chapman, R.; Shafai, G.; Maricich, Y.A. FDA regulations and prescription digital therapeutics: Evolving with the technologies they regulate. Front. Digit. Health 2023, 5, 1086219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Torous, J.; Stern, A.D.; Bourgeois, F.T. Regulatory considerations to keep pace with innovation in digital health products. Npj Digit. Med. 2022, 5, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Biskupiak, Z.; Ha, V.V.; Rohaj, A.; Bulaj, G. Digital Therapeutics for Improving Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Biological Products: Preclinical and Clinical Studies Supporting Development of Drug + Digital Combination Therapies for Chronic Diseases. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jiang, X.; Ming, W.K.; You, J.H. The Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Health Interventions on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e13166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Abbadessa, G.; Brigo, F.; Clerico, M.; De Mercanti, S.; Trojsi, F.; Tedeschi, G.; Bonavita, S.; Lavorgna, L. Digital therapeutics in neurology. J. Neurol. 2022, 269, 1209–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chung, J.Y. Digital therapeutics and clinical pharmacology. Transl. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 27, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ribba, B.; Peck, R.; Hutchinson, L.; Bousnina, I.; Motti, D. Digital Therapeutics as a New Therapeutic Modality: A Review from the Perspective of Clinical Pharmacology. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2023, 114, 578–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, C.; Lee, C.; Shin, H. Digital therapeutics from bench to bedside. Npj Digit. Med. 2023, 6, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rohaj, A.; Bulaj, G. Digital Therapeutics (DTx) Expand Multimodal Treatment Options for Chronic Low Back Pain: The Nexus of Precision Medicine, Patient Education, and Public Health. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maddox, T.; Oldstone, L.; Sparks, C.Y.; Sackman, J.; Oyao, A.; Garcia, L.; Maddox, R.U.; Ffrench, K.; Garcia, H.; Adair, T.; et al. In-Home Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Effectiveness Trial in a Clinically Severe and Diverse Sample. Mayo Clin. Proc. Digit. Health 2023, 1, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Garcia, L.M.; Birckhead, B.J.; Krishnamurthy, P.; Sackman, J.; Mackey, I.G.; Louis, R.G.; Salmasi, V.; Maddox, T.; Darnall, B.D. An 8-Week Self-Administered at-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Conducted during COVID-19. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e26292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stamatis, C.A.; Mercaldi, C.; Kollins, S.H. A Single-Arm Pivotal Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Akl-T01, a Novel Digital Intervention for Attention, in Adults Diagnosed With ADHD. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2023, 62, S318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kollins, S.H.; DeLoss, D.J.; Cañadas, E.; Lutz, J.; Findling, R.L.; Keefe, R.S.; Epstein, J.N.; Cutler, A.J.; Faraone, S.V. A novel digital intervention for actively reducing severity of paediatric ADHD (STARS-ADHD): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit. Health 2020, 2, e168–e178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Akili Interactive, EndeavorOTC. Available online: https://www.endeavorotc.com/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  43. Mattison, G.; Canfell, O.; Forrester, D.; Dobbins, C.; Smith, D.; Töyräs, J.; Sullivan, C. The influence of wearables on health care outcomes in chronic disease: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e36690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kang, H.S.; Exworthy, M. Wearing the future—Wearables to empower users to take greater responsibility for their health and care: Scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022, 10, e35684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Babu, M.; Lautman, Z.; Lin, X.; Sobota, M.H.; Snyder, M.P. Wearable Devices: Implications for Precision Medicine and the Future of Health Care. Annu. Rev. Med. 2024, 75, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brickwood, K.-J.; Watson, G.; O’Brien, J.; Williams, A.D. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e11819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zahrt, O.H.; Evans, K.; Murnane, E.; Santoro, E.; Baiocchi, M.; Landay, J.; Delp, S.; Crum, A. Effects of wearable fitness trackers and activity adequacy mindsets on affect, behavior, and health: Longitudinal randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023, 25, e40529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Szeto, K.; Arnold, J.; Singh, B.; Gower, B.; Simpson, C.E.; Maher, C. Interventions Using Wearable Activity Trackers to Improve Patient Physical Activity and Other Outcomes in Adults Who Are Hospitalized: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2318478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Heizmann, A.-N.; Chapelle, C.; Laporte, S.; Roche, F.; Hupin, D.; Le Hello, C. Impact of wearable device-based interventions with feedback for increasing daily walking activity and physical capacities in cardiovascular patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2023, 13, e069966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Master, H.; Annis, J.; Huang, S.; Beckman, J.A.; Ratsimbazafy, F.; Marginean, K.; Carroll, R.; Natarajan, K.; Harrell, F.E.; Roden, D.M.; et al. Association of step counts over time with the risk of chronic disease in the All of Us Research Program. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 2301–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Electronics, S. Samsung’s Sleep Apnea Feature on Galaxy Watch First of Its Kind Authorized by US FDA. Available online: https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-sleep-apnea-feature-galaxy-watch-first-its-kind-authorized-us-fda/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  52. Bloem, B.R.; Post, E.; Hall, D.A. An apple a day to keep the Parkinson’s disease doctor away? Ann. Neurol. 2023, 93, 681–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Svensson, T.; Madhawa, K.; Nt, H.; Chung, U.-i.; Svensson, A.K. Validity and reliability of the Oura Ring Generation 3 (Gen3) with Oura sleep staging algorithm 2.0 (OSSA 2.0) when compared to multi-night ambulatory polysomnography: A validation study of 96 participants and 421,045 epochs. Sleep Med. 2024, 115, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Amirdelfan, K.; Hong, M.; Tay, B.; Reddy, S.; Reddy, V.; Yang, M.; Khanna, K.; Shirvalkar, P.; Abrecht, C.; Gulati, A. High-Frequency Impulse Therapy for Treatment of Chronic Back Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. J. Pain Res. 2021, 14, 2991–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maddox, T.; Sparks, C.; Oldstone, L.; Maddox, R.; Ffrench, K.; Garcia, H.; Krishnamurthy, P.; Okhotin, D.; Garcia, L.M.; Birckhead, B.J.; et al. Durable chronic low back pain reductions up to 24 months after treatment for an accessible, 8-week, in-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality program: A randomized controlled trial. Pain Med. 2023, 24, 1200–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Garcia, L.; Birckhead, B.; Krishnamurthy, P.; Mackey, I.; Sackman, J.; Salmasi, V.; Louis, R.; Castro, C.; Maddox, R.; Maddox, T.; et al. Durability of the Treatment Effects of an 8-Week Self-administered Home-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-Up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e37480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Maddox, T.; Oldstone, L.; Sackman, J.; Judge, E.; Maddox, R.; Adair, T.; Ffrench, K.; Sparks, C.Y.; Darnall, B.D. Sociodemographic Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness, Therapeutic Program Engagement, and Device Usability for an In-Home Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Ext. Real. 2024, 1, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Quinn, C.C.; Clough, S.S.; Minor, J.M.; Lender, D.; Okafor, M.C.; Gruber-Baldini, A. WellDoc mobile diabetes management randomized controlled trial: Change in clinical and behavioral outcomes and patient and physician satisfaction. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2008, 10, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Agarwal, P.; Mukerji, G.; Desveaux, L.; Ivers, N.M.; Bhattacharyya, O.; Hensel, J.M.; Shaw, J.; Bouck, Z.; Jamieson, T.; Onabajo, N. Mobile app for improved self-management of type 2 diabetes: Multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e10321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kollins, S.H.; Childress, A.; Heusser, A.C.; Lutz, J. Effectiveness of a digital therapeutic as adjunct to treatment with medication in pediatric ADHD. Npj Digit. Med. 2021, 4, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Maple, A.; Palko, L.; Cañadas, E.; Jina, A. STARS Adjunct Trial: Evidence for the Effectiveness of a Digital Therapeutic as Adjunct to Treatment With Medication in Pediatric ADHD. CNS Spectr. 2023, 28, 215–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Carl, J.R.; Miller, C.B.; Henry, A.L.; Davis, M.L.; Stott, R.; Smits, J.A.J.; Emsley, R.; Gu, J.; Shin, O.; Otto, M.W.; et al. Efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for moderate-to-severe symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Depress Anxiety 2020, 37, 1168–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Miller, C.B.; Gu, J.; Henry, A.L.; Davis, M.L.; Espie, C.A.; Stott, R.; Heinz, A.J.; Bentley, K.H.; Goodwin, G.M.; Gorman, B.S. Feasibility and efficacy of a digital CBT intervention for symptoms of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A randomized multiple-baseline study. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 2021, 70, 101609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cowie, J.; Bower, J.L.; Gonzalez, R.; Alfano, C.A. Multimedia field test: Digitalizing better sleep using the Sleepio Program. Cogn. Behav. Pract. 2018, 25, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mathews, A.; Gibbons, N.; Harrison, E.; Ukoumunne, O.C.; Stallard, P. A feasibility study to explore the use of digital treatment of sleep as a first-step intervention to improve adolescent mental health. Behav. Sleep Med. 2023, 21, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bostock, S.; Luik, A.I.; Espie, C.A. Sleep and Productivity Benefits of Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: A Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted in the Workplace Environment. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Espie, C.A.; Emsley, R.; Kyle, S.D.; Gordon, C.; Drake, C.L.; Siriwardena, A.N.; Cape, J.; Ong, J.C.; Sheaves, B.; Foster, R.; et al. Effect of Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia on Health, Psychological Well-being, and Sleep-Related Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2019, 76, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rejoynhsp.com. Available online: https://www.rejoynhcp.com/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  69. Kim, D.; Joo, E.Y.; Choi, S.J. Validation of the Samsung Smartwatch for Sleep–Wake Determination and Sleep Stage Estimation. J. Sleep Med. 2023, 20, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ong, J.L.; Golkashani, H.A.; Ghorbani, S.; Wong, K.F.; Chee, N.I.Y.N.; Willoughby, A.R.; Chee, M.W.L. Selecting a sleep tracker from EEG-based, iteratively improved, low-cost multisensor, and actigraphy-only devices. Sleep Health 2024, 10, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Haghayegh, S.; Khoshnevis, S.; Smolensky, M.H.; Diller, K.R.; Castriotta, R.J. Accuracy of Wristband Fitbit Models in Assessing Sleep: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e16273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ringeval, M.; Wagner, G.; Denford, J.; Paré, G.; Kitsiou, S. Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e23954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Eylon, G.; Tikotzky, L.; Dinstein, I. Performance evaluation of Fitbit Charge 3 and actigraphy vs. polysomnography: Sensitivity, specificity, and reliability across participants and nights. Sleep Health 2023, 9, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Lubitz, S.A.; Faranesh, A.Z.; Selvaggi, C.; Atlas, S.J.; McManus, D.D.; Singer, D.E.; Pagoto, S.; McConnell, M.V.; Pantelopoulos, A.; Foulkes, A.S. Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in a Large Population Using Wearable Devices: The Fitbit Heart Study. Circulation 2022, 146, 1415–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Viczko, J.; Tarrant, J.; Jackson, R. Effects on mood and EEG states after meditation in augmented reality with and without adjunctive neurofeedback. Front. Virtual Real. 2021, 2, 618381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Krigolson, O.E.; Hammerstrom, M.R.; Abimbola, W.; Trska, R.; Wright, B.W.; Hecker, K.G.; Binsted, G. Using Muse: Rapid Mobile Assessment of Brain Performance. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 634147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Sidelinger, L.; Zhang, M.; Frohlich, F.; Daughters, S.B. Day-to-day individual alpha frequency variability measured by a mobile EEG device relates to anxiety. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2023, 57, 1815–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hawley, L.L.; Rector, N.A.; DaSilva, A.; Laposa, J.M.; Richter, M.A. Technology supported mindfulness for obsessive compulsive disorder: Self-reported mindfulness and EEG correlates of mind wandering. Behav. Res. Ther. 2021, 136, 103757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Arsalan, A.; Majid, M.; Butt, A.R.; Anwar, S.M. Classification of perceived mental stress using a commercially available EEG headband. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2019, 23, 2257–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Arsalan, A.; Majid, M. A study on multi-class anxiety detection using wearable EEG headband. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022, 13, 5739–5749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stavrakis, S.; Chakraborty, P.; Farhat, K.; Whyte, S.; Morris, L.; Abideen Asad, Z.U.; Karfonta, B.; Anjum, J.; Matlock, H.G.; Cai, X.; et al. Noninvasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Postural Tachycardia Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2024, 10, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Geng, D.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J. The effect of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation on HRV in healthy young people. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Yarnitsky, D.; Dodick, D.W.; Grosberg, B.M.; Burstein, R.; Ironi, A.; Harris, D.; Lin, T.; Silberstein, S.D. Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) Relieves Acute Migraine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2019, 59, 1240–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Tepper, S.J.; Rabany, L.; Cowan, R.P.; Smith, T.R.; Grosberg, B.M.; Torphy, B.D.; Harris, D.; Vizel, M.; Ironi, A.; Stark-Inbar, A.; et al. Remote electrical neuromodulation for migraine prevention: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2023, 63, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hershey, A.D.; Lin, T.; Gruper, Y.; Harris, D.; Ironi, A.; Berk, T.; Szperka, C.L.; Berenson, F. Remote electrical neuromodulation for acute treatment of migraine in adolescents. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2021, 61, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Grosberg, B.; Rabany, L.; Lin, T.; Harris, D.; Vizel, M.; Ironi, A.; O’Carroll, C.P.; Schim, J. Safety and efficacy of remote electrical neuromodulation for the acute treatment of chronic migraine: An open-label study. Pain Rep. 2021, 6, e966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Blumenfeld, A.M.; Rabany, L.; Ironi, A.; Stark-Inbar, A.; Harris, D.; Singh, R.B.H.; Harriott, A.M. Temporal analysis of remote electric neuromodulation for the prevention of migraine. Pain Manag. 2023, 13, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vatanka, P.; Lofton, J.C. Re-envisioning the Pharmacist’s Role in the Era of Digital Health—CPhA’s Inaugural Digital Health Conference. J. Contemp. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 67, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Aungst, T.D.; Miranda, A.C.; Serag-Bolos, E.S. How mobile devices are changing pharmacy practice. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2015, 72, 494–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Shafai, G.; Aungst, T.D. Prescription digital therapeutics: A new frontier for pharmacists and the future of treatment. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2023, 63, 1030–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alsahali, S. Awareness, views, perceptions, and beliefs of pharmacy interns regarding digital health in Saudi Arabia: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Med. Educ. 2021, 7, e31149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. AMCP Partnership Forum Develops Steps to Strengthen Evaluation of Digital Therapeutics. Available online: https://www.amcp.org/About/Media/Press-Releases/amcp-partnership-forum-steps-strengthen-evaluation-dtx (accessed on 18 March 2024).
  93. Ranchon, F.; Chanoine, S.; Lambert-Lacroix, S.; Bosson, J.-L.; Moreau-Gaudry, A.; Bedouch, P. Development of artificial intelligence powered apps and tools for clinical pharmacy services: A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2023, 172, 104983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cochran, J.M.; Heidary, Z.; Knights, J. Characterization of activity behavior using a digital medicine system and comparison to medication ingestion in patients with serious mental illness. Npj Digit. Med. 2021, 4, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Sverdlov, O.; van Dam, J.; Hannesdottir, K.; Thornton-Wells, T. Digital Therapeutics: An Integral Component of Digital Innovation in Drug Development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 104, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Giravi, H.Y.; Biskupiak, Z.; Tyler, L.S.; Bulaj, G. Adjunct Digital Interventions Improve Opioid-Based Pain Management: Impact of Virtual Reality and Mobile Applications on Patient-Centered Pharmacy Care. Front. Digit. Health 2022, 4, 884047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Maricich, Y.A.; Xiong, X.; Gerwien, R.; Kuo, A.; Velez, F.; Imbert, B.; Boyer, K.; Luderer, H.F.; Braun, S.; Williams, K. Real-world evidence for a prescription digital therapeutic to treat opioid use disorder. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Maricich, Y.A.; Bickel, W.K.; Marsch, L.A.; Gatchalian, K.; Botbyl, J.; Luderer, H.F. Safety and efficacy of a prescription digital therapeutic as an adjunct to buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Maricich, Y.A.; Gerwien, R.; Kuo, A.; Malone, D.C.; Velez, F.F. Real-world use and clinical outcomes after 24 weeks of treatment with a prescription digital therapeutic for opioid use disorder. Hosp. Pract. 2021, 48, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Velez, F.F.; Anastassopoulos, K.P.; Colman, S.; Shah, N.; Kauffman, L.; Murphy, S.M.; Ruetsch, C.; Maricich, Y.A. Reduced Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder in the 12 Months After Initiation of a Prescription Digital Therapeutic. Adv. Ther. 2022, 39, 4131–4145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Velez, F.F.; Malone, D.C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Prescription Digital Therapeutic for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder. J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2021, 9, 1966187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. MacLeod, J.; Im, G.H.; Smith, M.; Vigersky, R.A. Shining the Spotlight on Multiple Daily Insulin Therapy: Real-World Evidence of the InPen Smart Insulin Pen. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2024, 26, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Daly, A.B.; Boughton, C.K.; Nwokolo, M.; Hartnell, S.; Wilinska, M.E.; Cezar, A.; Evans, M.L.; Hovorka, R. Fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 2 diabetes: An open-label, single-center, randomized crossover trial. Nat. Med. 2023, 29, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rafiei, R.; Williams, C.; Jiang, J.; Aungst, T.D.; Durrer, M.; Tran, D.; Howald, R. Digital Health Integration Assessment and Maturity of the United States Biopharmaceutical Industry: Forces Driving the Next Generation of Connected Autoinjectable Devices. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021, 9, e25406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Hakami, A.M.; Almutairi, B.; Alanazi, A.S.; Alzahrani, M.A.; Alanazi, A.S.; Alzahrani, M.A., Sr. Effect of Mobile Apps on Medication Adherence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Recent Studies. Cureus 2024, 16, e51791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Islam, S.M.S.; Mishra, V.; Siddiqui, M.U.; Moses, J.C.; Adibi, S.; Nguyen, L.; Wickramasinghe, N. Smartphone Apps for Diabetes Medication Adherence: Systematic Review. JMIR Diabetes 2022, 7, e33264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. FDA. Regulatory Considerations for Prescription Drug Use-Related Software. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/regulatory-considerations-prescription-drug-use-related-software (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  108. Johnson, K.B.; Wei, W.-Q.; Weeraratne, D.; Frisse, M.E.; Misulis, K.; Rhee, K.; Zhao, J.; Snowdon, J.L. Precision Medicine, AI, and the Future of Personalized Health Care. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2021, 14, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Dhital, R.; Sakulwach, S.; Robert, G.; Vasilikou, C.; Sin, J. Systematic review on the effects of the physical and social aspects of community pharmacy spaces on service users and staff. Perspect. Public Health 2022, 142, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fleming, G.A.; Petrie, J.R.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Holl, R.W.; Peters, A.L.; Heinemann, L. Diabetes Digital App Technology: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations. A Consensus Report by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care 2020, 43, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Doyle-Delgado, K.; Chamberlain, J.J. Use of diabetes-related applications and digital health tools by people with diabetes and their health care providers. Clin. Diabetes 2020, 38, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Moschonis, G.; Siopis, G.; Jung, J.; Eweka, E.; Willems, R.; Kwasnicka, D.; Asare, B.Y.-A.; Kodithuwakku, V.; Verhaeghe, N.; Vedanthan, R. Effectiveness, reach, uptake, and feasibility of digital health interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Digit. Health 2023, 5, e125–e143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Yao, W.; Han, Y.; Yang, L.; Chen, Y.; Yan, S.; Cheng, Y. Electronic Interactive Games for Glycemic Control in Individuals With Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR Serious Games 2024, 12, e43574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Raza, A.; Wasim, M.; Ishaq, M.I. Virtual reality-based product displays to inspire consumers’ purchase intentions: An experimental study. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 175, 114540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ryan, J.; Edney, S.; Maher, C. Anxious or empowered? A cross-sectional study exploring how wearable activity trackers make their owners feel. BMC Psychol. 2019, 7, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Nuss, K.; Moore, K.; Nelson, T.; Li, K. Effects of motivational interviewing and wearable fitness trackers on motivation and physical activity: A systematic review. Am. J. Health Promot. 2021, 35, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Hunkin, H.; King, D.L.; Zajac, I.T. Evaluating the feasibility of a consumer-grade wearable EEG headband to aid assessment of state and trait mindfulness. J. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 77, 2559–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Herman, K.; Ciechanowski, L.; Przegalińska, A. Emotional well-being in urban wilderness: Assessing states of calmness and alertness in informal green spaces (IGSs) with muse—Portable EEG headband. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Acabchuk, R.L.; Simon, M.A.; Low, S.; Brisson, J.M.; Johnson, B.T. Measuring meditation progress with a consumer-grade EEG device: Caution from a randomized controlled trial. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ciardulli, L.M.; Goode, J.-V.R. Using Health Observances to Promote Wellness in Community Pharmacies. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2003, 43, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Ward, K.; Hawthorne, K. Do patients read health promotion posters in the waiting room? A study in one general practice. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 1994, 44, 583–585. [Google Scholar]
  122. WICKE, D.; LORGE, R.; COPPIN, R.; JONES, K. The Effectiveness of Waiting Room Notice-Boards as a Vehicle for Health Education. Fam. Pract. 1994, 11, 292–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Chadi, A.; Thirion, D.J.; David, P.-M. Vaccine promotion strategies in community pharmacy addressing vulnerable populations: A scoping review. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Hasanica, N.; Ramic-Catak, A.; Mujezinovic, A.; Begagic, S.; Galijasevic, K.; Oruc, M. The Effectiveness of Leaflets and Posters as a Health Education Method. Mater Sociomed 2020, 32, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Maskell, K.; McDonald, P.; Paudyal, P. Effectiveness of health education materials in general practice waiting rooms: A cross-sectional study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2018, 68, e869–e876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Han, Y.; Chandukala, S.R.; Li, S. Impact of different types of in-store displays on consumer purchase behavior. J. Retail. 2022, 98, 432–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Scandiffio, J.; Zhang, M.; Karsan, I.; Charow, R.; Anderson, M.; Salhia, M.; Wiljer, D. The role of mentoring and coaching of healthcare professionals for digital technology adoption and implementation: A scoping review. Digit. Health 2024, 10, 20552076241238075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nazeha, N.; Pavagadhi, D.; Kyaw, B.M.; Car, J.; Jimenez, G.; Tudor Car, L. A digitally competent health workforce: Scoping review of educational frameworks. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e22706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Borges do Nascimento, I.J.; Abdulazeem, H.; Vasanthan, L.T.; Martinez, E.Z.; Zucoloto, M.L.; Østengaard, L.; Azzopardi-Muscat, N.; Zapata, T.; Novillo-Ortiz, D. Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals. Npj Digit. Med. 2023, 6, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K.; Meilianti, S.; Khatri, B.; Yi, W.; Azzopardi, L.M.; Acosta Gómez, J.; Gülpınar, G.; Bennara, K.; Uzman, N. Digital Health in Pharmacy Education: Preparedness and Responsiveness of Pharmacy Programmes. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Wong, J.C.; Hekimyan, L.; Cruz, F.A.; Brower, T. Identifying Pertinent Digital Health Topics to Incorporate into Self-Care Pharmacy Education. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rodis, J.; Aungst, T.D.; Brown, N.V.; Cui, Y.; Tam, L. Enhancing Pharmacy Student Learning and Perceptions of Medical Apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016, 4, e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Darnell, J.C.; Lou, M.; Goldstone, L.W. Evaluating Change in Student Pharmacists’ Familiarity, Attitudes, Comfort, and Knowledge as a Result of Integrating Digital Health Topics Into a Case Conference Series: Cohort Study. JMIR Med. Educ. 2023, 9, e43313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Hoving, C.; Visser, A.; Dolan Mullen, P.; Van den Borne, B. A history of patient education by health professionals in Europe and North America: From authority to shared decision making education. Patient Edu. Counsel. 2010, 78, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Crosbie, E.; Florence, D. Expanding our understanding of industry opposition to help implement sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Public Health Nutr. 2022, 25, 180–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Moodie, R.; Stuckler, D.; Monteiro, C.; Sheron, N.; Neal, B.; Thamarangsi, T.; Lincoln, P.; Casswell, S. Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet 2013, 381, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Hoe, C.; Weiger, C.; Minosa, M.K.R.; Alonso, F.; Koon, A.D.; Cohen, J.E. Strategies to expand corporate autonomy by the tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverage industry: A scoping review of reviews. Glob. Health 2022, 18, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Smoking and Tobacco Use. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  139. The, L. Tobacco elimination: An economic and public health imperative. Lancet 2017, 389, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Levy, D.E.; Regan, S.; Perez, G.K.; Muzikansky, A.; Friedman, E.R.; Rabin, J.; Rigotti, N.A.; Ostroff, J.S.; Park, E.R. Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2216362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ali, F.R.M.; Neff, L.; Wang, X.; Hu, S.S.; Schecter, A.; Mahoney, M.; Melstrom, P.C. Tobacco-Free Pharmacies and U.S. Adult Smoking Behavior: Evidence From CVS Health’s Removal of Tobacco Sales. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2020, 58, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Seidenberg, A.B.; Henriksen, L.; Ribisl, K.M. Cigarette Promotions in U.S. Pharmacies. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2022, 24, 612–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Little, M.A.; Reid, T.; Moncrief, M.; Cohn, W.; Wiseman, K.P.; Wood, C.H.; You, W.; Anderson, R.T.; Krukowski, R.A. Testing the feasibility of the QuitAid smoking cessation intervention in a randomized factorial design in an independent, rural community pharmacy. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Martínez, J.C.G.; Lavesa, L.G.; Barbero, A.M.; Zamora, J.P.; Piñón, M.L.; Juanola, M.A.; Catalá, M.C.; de Andrés Dirube, A.; Moreno, L.G.; Magariños, I.J. Smoking cessation intervention in the community pharmacy: Cost-effectiveness of a non-randomized cluster-controlled trial at 12-months’ follow-up. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2024, 20, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Saba, M.; Diep, J.; Saini, B.; Dhippayom, T. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in community pharmacy. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2014, 39, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Condinho, M.; Ramalhinho, I.; Sinogas, C. Smoking Cessation at the Community Pharmacy: Determinants of Success from a Real-Life Practice. Pharmacy 2021, 9, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NAlcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in the United States: Age Groups and Demographic Characteristics. Available online: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/alcohol-use-disorder-aud-united-states-age-groups-and-demographic-characteristics (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  148. Dimitropoulos, E.; Bertucci, S.; Wong, K. Integration of a Clinical Pharmacy Specialist into a Substance use Disorder Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program to Improve Prescribing Rates of Alcohol use Disorder Pharmacotherapy. Subst. Abus. 2018, 39, 190–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Anderson, B.O.; Berdzuli, N.; Ilbawi, A.; Kestel, D.; Kluge, H.P.; Krech, R.; Mikkelsen, B.; Neufeld, M.; Poznyak, V.; Rekve, D.; et al. Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption. Lancet Public Health 2023, 8, e6–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Esser, M.B.; Sherk, A.; Liu, Y.; Henley, S.J.; Naimi, T.S. Reducing Alcohol Use to Prevent Cancer Deaths: Estimated Effects Among U.S. Adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2024, 66, 725–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Esser, M.B.; Leung, G.; Sherk, A.; Bohm, M.K.; Liu, Y.; Lu, H.; Naimi, T.S. Estimated Deaths Attributable to Excessive Alcohol Use Among US Adults Aged 20 to 64 Years, 2015 to 2019. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2239485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Whitehouse, A.; Simon, A.; French, S.A.; Wolfson, J. Availability of snacks, candy and beverages in hospital, community clinic and commercial pharmacies. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 15, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Roberto, C.A.; Lawman, H.G.; LeVasseur, M.T.; Mitra, N.; Peterhans, A.; Herring, B.; Bleich, S.N. Association of a Beverage Tax on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages With Changes in Beverage Prices and Sales at Chain Retailers in a Large Urban Setting. JAMA 2019, 321, 1799–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hua, S.V.; Petimar, J.; Mitra, N.; Roberto, C.A.; Kenney, E.L.; Thorndike, A.N.; Rimm, E.B.; Volpp, K.G.; Gibson, L.A. Philadelphia Beverage Tax and Association With Prices, Purchasing, and Individual-Level Substitution in a National Pharmacy Chain. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2323200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Malik, V.S.; Hu, F.B. The role of sugar-sweetened beverages in the global epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2022, 18, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Malik, V.S.; Li, Y.; Pan, A.; Koning, L.D.; Schernhammer, E.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. Circulation 2019, 139, 2113–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Mullee, A.; Romaguera, D.; Pearson-Stuttard, J.; Viallon, V.; Stepien, M.; Freisling, H.; Fagherazzi, G.; Mancini, F.R.; Boutron-Ruault, M.-C.; Kühn, T.; et al. Association Between Soft Drink Consumption and Mortality in 10 European Countries. JAMA Intern. Med. 2019, 179, 1479–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Alcaraz, A.; Pichon-Riviere, A.; Palacios, A.; Bardach, A.; Balan, D.J.; Perelli, L.; Augustovski, F.; Ciapponi, A. Sugar sweetened beverages attributable disease burden and the potential impact of policy interventions: A systematic review of epidemiological and decision models. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Yuan, C.; Joh, H.K.; Wang, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.; Smith-Warner, S.A.; Wang, M.; Song, M.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zoltick, E.S.; et al. Sugar-sweetened beverage and sugar consumption and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality according to anatomic subsite. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 115, 1481–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. McCullough, M.L.; Hodge, R.A.; Campbell, P.T.; Guinter, M.A.; Patel, A.V. Sugar- and Artificially-Sweetened Beverages and Cancer Mortality in a Large U.S. Prospective Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2022, 31, 1907–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Tran, Q.D.; Nguyen, T.H.H.; Le, C.L.; Van Hoang, L.; Vu, T.Q.C.; Phan, N.Q.; Bui, T.T. Sugar-sweetened beverages consumption increases the risk of metabolic syndrome and its components in adults: Consistent and robust evidence from an umbrella review. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2023, 57, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ding, P.; Yue, W.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Guo, X. Effects of sugary drinks, coffee, tea and fruit juice on incidence rate, mortality and cardiovascular complications of type2 diabetes patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Diabetes Metab. Disord. 2024, 23, 1113–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Fung, T.T.; Rossato, S.L.; Chen, Z.; Khandpur, N.; Rodriguez-Artalejo, F.; Willett, W.C.; Struijk, E.A.; Lopez-Garcia, E. Ultra-processed foods, unprocessed/minimally processed foods and risk of frailty in a cohort of US females. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2024, 120, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Arroyo-Quiroz, C.; Brunauer, R.; Alavez, S. Sugar-sweetened beverages and Cancer risk: A narrative review. Nutr. Cancer 2022, 74, 3077–3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Malik, V.S.; Pan, A.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis123. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 98, 1084–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Malik, V.S.; Popkin, B.M.; Bray, G.A.; Després, J.-P.; Hu, F.B. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Circulation 2010, 121, 1356–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Imamura, F.; O’Connor, L.; Ye, Z.; Mursu, J.; Hayashino, Y.; Bhupathiraju, S.N.; Forouhi, N.G. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. BMJ Br. Med. J. 2015, 351, h3576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Wang, M.; Yu, M.; Fang, L.; Hu, R.-Y. Association between sugar-sweetened beverages and type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. J. Diabetes Investig. 2015, 6, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Hu, D.; Cheng, L.; Jiang, W. Sugar-sweetened beverages consumption and the risk of depression: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 245, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Wang, Y.; Zhao, R.; Wang, B.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, B.; Tian, X. The dose-response associations of sugar-sweetened beverage intake with the risk of stroke, depression, cancer, and cause-specific mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Nutrients 2022, 14, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Freije, S.L. Association between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and 100% fruit juice with poor mental health among US adults in 11 US States and the District of Columbia. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2021, 18, E51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Farsad-Naeimi, A.; Asjodi, F.; Omidian, M.; Askari, M.; Nouri, M.; Pizarro, A.B.; Daneshzad, E. Sugar consumption, sugar sweetened beverages and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement. Ther. Med. 2020, 53, 102512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Liu, H.; Liu, Y.; Shi, M.; Zhou, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xia, Y. Meta-analysis of sugar-sweetened beverage intake and the risk of cognitive disorders. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 313, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y. Associations of sugar-sweetened, artificially sweetened, and naturally sweet juices with Alzheimer’s disease: A prospective cohort study. GeroScience 2024, 46, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Cordova, R.; Viallon, V.; Fontvieille, E.; Peruchet-Noray, L.; Jansana, A.; Wagner, K.-H.; Kyrø, C.; Tjønneland, A.; Katzke, V.; Bajracharya, R.; et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: A multinational cohort study. Lancet Reg. Health-Eur. 2023, 35, 100771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Li, B.; Yan, N.; Jiang, H.; Cui, M.; Wu, M.; Wang, L.; Mi, B.; Li, Z.; Shi, J.; Fan, Y. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juices and risk of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and mortality: A meta-analysis. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1019534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Ma, J.; Jacques, P.F.; Meigs, J.B.; Fox, C.S.; Rogers, G.T.; Smith, C.E.; Hruby, A.; Saltzman, E.; McKeown, N.M. Sugar-Sweetened Beverage but Not Diet Soda Consumption Is Positively Associated with Progression of Insulin Resistance and Prediabetes123. J. Nutr. 2016, 146, 2544–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Diabetes. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/index.html (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  179. Martin, S.S.; Aday, A.W.; Almarzooq, Z.I.; Anderson, C.A.M.; Arora, P.; Avery, C.L.; Baker-Smith, C.M.; Gibbs, B.B.; Beaton, A.Z.; Boehme, A.K.; et al. 2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2024, 149, e347–e913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Chiu, C.; Wong, A.; Chhen, J.; Roderos, A.-J.; Apollonio, D.E. Retail chain pharmacy opioid dispensing practices from 1997 to 2020: A content analysis of internal industry documents. Drug Alcohol Depend. Rep. 2023, 9, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Gonick, S.A. Opioid Litigation: Lessons Learned from a Retail Pharmacy Settlement. Am. J. Law Med. 2022, 48, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Tanne, J.H. US pharmacy chains settle opioid lawsuits for $13bn. BMJ 2022, 379, o2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Belkhir, L.; Elmeligi, A. Carbon footprint of the global pharmaceutical industry and relative impact of its major players. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Richie, C. Environmental sustainability and the carbon emissions of pharmaceuticals. J. Med. Ethics 2022, 48, 334–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Keil, M.; Frehse, L.; Hagemeister, M.; Knieß, M.; Lange, O.; Kronenberg, T.; Rogowski, W. Carbon footprint of healthcare systems: A systematic review of evidence and methods. BMJ Open 2024, 14, e078464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Freishtat, H.; Roesler, A.R.; Lin-Schweitzer, A.; Moreno, I.; Hesse-Fong, J. Catalyzing Action for Pharmacist-Provided Food Is Medicine Care; The Milken Institute: Santa Monica, WA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  187. National Association of Chain Drug Stores, NACDS Hails Innovative and Groundbreaking Report by Milken Institute on Effectively Implementing and Scaling Pharmacist-Provided Food Is Medicine Care. Available online: https://www.nacds.org/news/nacds-hails-innovative-and-groundbreaking-report-by-milken-institute-on-effectively-implementing-and-scaling-pharmacist-provided-food-is-medicine-care/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  188. Smith, M.A. Implementing primary care pharmacist services: Go upstream in the world of value-based payment models. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2017, 13, 892–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Sullivan, S.D.; Yeung, K.; Vogeler, C.; Ramsey, S.D.; Wong, E.; Murphy, C.O.; Danielson, D.; Veenstra, D.L.; Garrison, L.P.; Burke, W.; et al. Design, Implementation, and First-Year Outcomes of a Value-Based Drug Formulary. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2015, 21, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Liu, L.; Li, S.; Opara, M. Corporate social responsibility and strategic company behaviour: CVS Health’s discontinuation of tobacco products. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1293–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Mattingly, T.J.; Ben-Umeh, K.C.; Bai, G.; Anderson, G.F. Pharmacy Benefit Manager Pricing and Spread Pricing for High-Utilization Generic Drugs. JAMA Health Forum 2023, 4, e233660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Trish, E.; Van Nuys, K.; Popovian, R. US consumers overpay for generic drugs. Schaeffer Cent. White Pap. Ser. 2022, 10, m589-2268. [Google Scholar]
  193. Nichols, M.A.; Hettinger, K.N.; Greiwe, L.D.; Howard, H.G.; Adeoye-Olatunde, O.A.; Olenik, N.L.; Snyder, M.E. Strengths and limitations of a novel “Flip the Pharmacy” practice transformation coach advanced pharmacy practice experience. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2023, 15, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Bacci, J.L.; Ferreri, S.P.; Coley, K.C.; Daly, C.J.; Hake, K.L.; Herbert, S.M.; Hughes, T.D.; McDonough, R.P.; Roller, J.S.; McGivney, M.S. Qualitative analysis of a community pharmacy practice transformation initiative. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2022, 5, 1236–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Kondic, A.M.S.; Trygstad, T.; McDonough, R.; Osterhaus, M. Scaling community pharmacy transformation with the ‘Flip the Pharmacy’implementation model: Program origins. INNOVATIONS Pharm. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Cornell, W.K.; Clauson, K.A.; Cain, J. Updating the Model: The Case for Independent Pharmacy to Embrace Digital Health. Innov. Pharm. 2019, 10, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Martin, A.; Brummond, P.; Vlasimsky, T.; Steffenhagen, A.; Langley, J.; Glowczewski, J.; Boyd, A.; Engels, M.; Hermann, S.; Skaff, A. The Evolving Frontier of Digital Health: Opportunities for Pharmacists on the Horizon. Hosp. Pharm. 2018, 53, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Budenz, A.; Moser, R.P.; Eck, R.; Agurs-Collins, T.; McNeel, T.S.; Klein, W.M.; Berrigan, D. Awareness of alcohol and cancer risk and the California Proposition 65 Warning Sign updates: A natural experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Giovenco, D.P.; Spillane, T.E.; Mauro, C.M.; Hernández, D. Evaluating the impact and equity of a tobacco-free pharmacy law on retailer density in New York City neighbourhoods. Tob. Control 2019, 28, 548–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Jin, Y.; Berman, M.; Klein, E.G.; Foraker, R.E.; Lu, B.; Ferketich, A.K. Ending tobacco sales in pharmacies: A qualitative study. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2017, 57, 670–676.e671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Andreyeva, T.; Marple, K.; Marinello, S.; Moore, T.E.; Powell, L.M. Outcomes Following Taxation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2215276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Silver, L.D.; Ng, S.W.; Ryan-Ibarra, S.; Taillie, L.S.; Induni, M.; Miles, D.R.; Poti, J.M.; Popkin, B.M. Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2017, 14, e1002283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kaplan, S.; White, J.S.; Madsen, K.A.; Basu, S.; Villas-Boas, S.B.; Schillinger, D. Evaluation of Changes in Prices and Purchases Following Implementation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes Across the US. JAMA Health Forum 2024, 5, e234737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Jin, Y.; Lu, B.; Berman, M.; Klein, E.G.; Foraker, R.E.; Ferketich, A.K. The impact of tobacco-free pharmacy policies on smoking prevalence. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2016, 56, 627–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Phillips, A.Z.; Ahern, J.A.; Kerr, W.C.; Rodriguez, H.P. Cigarettes smoked among daily and non-daily smokers following CVS Health’s tobacco-free pharmacy policy. Tob. Control 2022, 31, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Polinski, J.M.; Howell, B.; Gagnon, M.A.; Kymes, S.M.; Brennan, T.A.; Shrank, W.H. Impact of CVS Pharmacy’s Discontinuance of Tobacco Sales on Cigarette Purchasing (2012–2014). Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. MobiHealthNews. Walgreens adds Abbott, BetterHelp, Hinge Health to Virtual Marketplace. 2021. Available online: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/walgreens-adds-abbott-betterhelp-hinge-health-virtual-marketplace (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  208. Pathak, S.; Blanchard, C.M.; Moreton, E.; Urick, B.Y. A systematic review of the effect of telepharmacy services in the community pharmacy setting on care quality and patient safety. J. Health Care Poor Underserved 2021, 32, 737–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Le, T.; Toscani, M.; Colaizzi, J. Telepharmacy: A New Paradigm for Our Profession. J. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 33, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Imam, S.N.; Braun, U.K.; Garcia, M.A.; Jackson, L.K. Evolution of Telehealth—Its Impact on Palliative Care and Medication Management. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kehrer, J.P.; James, D.E. The Role of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Education in Point-of-Care Testing. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2016, 80, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Buss, V.H.; Deeks, L.S.; Shield, A.; Kosari, S.; Naunton, M. Analytical quality and effectiveness of point-of-care testing in community pharmacies: A systematic literature review. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2019, 15, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Steltenpohl, E.A.; Barry, B.K.; Coley, K.C.; McGivney, M.S.; Olenak, J.L.; Berenbrok, L.A. Point-of-care testing in community pharmacies: Keys to success from Pennsylvania pharmacists. J. Pharm. Pract. 2018, 31, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Ward, C.B.; Roy, D.P.; Edmondson, D.R. Is CVS Just ‘Blowing Smoke?’: Evaluating the CVS Decision to Ban Tobacco Products. Case Stud. Strateg. Commun. 2016, 5, 249–264. [Google Scholar]
  215. Fortune Business Insights, The U.S. Digital Health Market Size. Available online: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/u-s-digital-health-market-108744 (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  216. Insights10. US Digital Health Market Analysis. Available online: https://www.insights10.com/report/us-digital-health-market-analysis/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  217. Rummo, P.E.; Pho, N.; Bragg, M.A.; Roberto, C.A.; Elbel, B. Trends in Store-Level Sales of Sugary Beverages and Water in the U.S., 2006–2015. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2020, 59, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Callaghan, S.; Lösch, M.; Pione, A.; Teichner, W. Feeling Good: The Future of the $1.5 Trillion Wellness Market; McKinsey Co.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2021; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  219. Lumbreras, A.G.; Hurwitz, J.T.; Liang, X.; Schippers, S.; Phillip, K.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Waters, H.C.; Malone, D.C. Insights into insurance coverage for digital therapeutics: A qualitative study of US payer perspectives. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2024, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Smith, B.; Magnani, J.W. New technologies, new disparities: The intersection of electronic health and digital health literacy. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 292, 280–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Rodriguez, J.A.; Clark, C.R.; Bates, D.W. Digital health equity as a necessity in the 21st century cures act era. JAMA 2020, 323, 2381–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Richardson, S.; Lawrence, K.; Schoenthaler, A.M.; Mann, D. A framework for digital health equity. Npj Digit. Med. 2022, 5, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Bottacin, W.E.; de Souza, T.T.; Melchiors, A.C.; Reis, W.C.T. Preparing Pharmacists for the Digital Age: How Pharmacy Courses are Adapting to Challenges and Opportunities. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2024, 88, 100700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Aungst, T.D. Integrating mHealth and mobile technology education into the pharmacy curriculum. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2014, 78, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Rooney, J. Diving Into Digital Health. Available online: https://www.aacp.org/article/diving-digital-health (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  226. Grummon, A.H.; Ruggles, P.R.; Greenfield, T.K.; Hall, M.G. Designing Effective Alcohol Warnings: Consumer Reactions to Icons and Health Topics. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2023, 64, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. An, R.; Liu, J.; Liu, R.; Barker, A.R.; Figueroa, R.B.; McBride, T.D. Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Warning Labels on Consumer Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2021, 60, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Popova, L.; Massey, Z.B.; Giordano, N.A. Warning Labels as a Public Health Intervention: Effects and Challenges for Tobacco, Cannabis, and Opioid Medications. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2024, 45, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Clarke, N.; Pechey, E.; Kosīte, D.; König, L.M.; Mantzari, E.; Blackwell, A.K.M.; Marteau, T.M.; Hollands, G.J. Impact of health warning labels on selection and consumption of food and alcohol products: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2021, 15, 430–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Ireland, D. Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2023 Signed into Law. Drugnet Ireland. 2023. Available online: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/39492/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  231. Burki, T. World’s first alcohol health labelling policy to be introduced in Ireland. Lancet Oncol. 2023, 24, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Tselengidis, A.; Östergren, P.-O. Lobbying against sugar taxation in the European Union: Analysing the lobbying arguments and tactics of stakeholders in the food and drink industries. Scand. J. Public Health 2019, 47, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Lauber, K.; Rippin, H.; Wickramasinghe, K.; Gilmore, A.B. Corporate political activity in the context of sugar-sweetened beverage tax policy in the WHO European Region. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 32, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Fooks, G.J.; Williams, S.; Box, G.; Sacks, G. Corporations’ use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: A case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Glob. Health 2019, 15, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Simon, M. Can Food Companies Be Trusted to Self-Regulate-An Analysis of Corporate Lobbying and Deception to Undermine Children’s Health. Loy. LAL Rev. 2006, 39, 169. [Google Scholar]
  236. Bauer, M.S.; Damschroder, L.; Hagedorn, H.; Smith, J.; Kilbourne, A.M. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015, 3, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Babu, M.; Snyder, M. Multi-Omics Profiling for Health. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2023, 22, 100561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Canfell, O.J.; Littlewood, R.; Burton-Jones, A.; Sullivan, C. Digital health and precision prevention: Shifting from disease-centred care to consumer-centred health. Aust. Health Rev. 2021, 46, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Tung, J.Y.; Shaw, R.J.; Hagenkord, J.M.; Hackmann, M.; Muller, M.; Beachy, S.H.; Pratt, V.M.; Terry, S.F.; Cashion, A.K.; Ginsburg, G.S. Accelerating precision health by applying the lessons learned from direct-to-consumer genomics to digital health technologies. NAM Perspect. 2018. Available online: https://nam.edu/accelerating-precision-health-by-applying-the-lessons-learned-from-direct-to-consumer-genomics-to-digital-health-technologies/ (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  240. Cancela, J.; Charlafti, I.; Colloud, S.; Wu, C. Chapter 2—Digital health in the era of personalized healthcare: Opportunities and challenges for bringing research and patient care to a new level. In Digital Health; Syed-Abdul, S., Zhu, X., Fernandez-Luque, L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 7–31. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Despite the highest healthcare spending per capita, the number of avoidable deaths is higher in the US (marked in bold font for emphasis) as compared to other high-income countries, while 10-year reduction in avoidable mortality in the US is inferior as compared to other high-income countries. SWIZ, Switzerland; AUS, Australia, SWE, Sweden; NETH, the Netherlands; NOR, Norway; FRA, France; NZ, New Zealand; CAN, Canada; GER, Germany; UK, the United Kingdom; US, the United States. This figure was originally shown as Exhibit 8 in the Commonwealth Fund report [1], and was reproduced with permission from the publisher.
Figure 1. Despite the highest healthcare spending per capita, the number of avoidable deaths is higher in the US (marked in bold font for emphasis) as compared to other high-income countries, while 10-year reduction in avoidable mortality in the US is inferior as compared to other high-income countries. SWIZ, Switzerland; AUS, Australia, SWE, Sweden; NETH, the Netherlands; NOR, Norway; FRA, France; NZ, New Zealand; CAN, Canada; GER, Germany; UK, the United Kingdom; US, the United States. This figure was originally shown as Exhibit 8 in the Commonwealth Fund report [1], and was reproduced with permission from the publisher.
Pharmacy 12 00107 g001
Figure 2. Rendering of a retail pharmacy space with aisles dedicated to selling and marketing diverse digital health technologies ranging from OTC and prescription digital therapeutics to health-promoting consumer wearables and wellness mobile apps.
Figure 2. Rendering of a retail pharmacy space with aisles dedicated to selling and marketing diverse digital health technologies ranging from OTC and prescription digital therapeutics to health-promoting consumer wearables and wellness mobile apps.
Pharmacy 12 00107 g002
Figure 3. Examples of posters dedicated to patient education and marketing of digital health technologies in retail pharmacies. Such posters can be located as wall posters or display boards across the pharmacy space.
Figure 3. Examples of posters dedicated to patient education and marketing of digital health technologies in retail pharmacies. Such posters can be located as wall posters or display boards across the pharmacy space.
Pharmacy 12 00107 g003
Figure 4. Health-harming properties of sugar-sweetened beverages expressed as Cox’s hazard ratios (CHRs). CHR values above 1 indicate increased risks for premature death or morbidities when drinking more than two SSBs daily when compared to the control groups. Detailed data used for this graph are shown in Table S1 in the Supplemental Materials.
Figure 4. Health-harming properties of sugar-sweetened beverages expressed as Cox’s hazard ratios (CHRs). CHR values above 1 indicate increased risks for premature death or morbidities when drinking more than two SSBs daily when compared to the control groups. Detailed data used for this graph are shown in Table S1 in the Supplemental Materials.
Pharmacy 12 00107 g004
Figure 5. Transforming retail pharmacy environment by replacing sales and marketing of health-harming products (sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol, and tobacco) with health-promoting digital technologies.
Figure 5. Transforming retail pharmacy environment by replacing sales and marketing of health-harming products (sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol, and tobacco) with health-promoting digital technologies.
Pharmacy 12 00107 g005
Table 2. An evidence-based rationale for eliminating sales and marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages in healthcare spaces, such as retail pharmacies. Examples of studies that show effects of SSBs on mortality and morbidity rates.
Table 2. An evidence-based rationale for eliminating sales and marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages in healthcare spaces, such as retail pharmacies. Examples of studies that show effects of SSBs on mortality and morbidity rates.
StudiesMain Findings
Malik et al. [156]A positive association between consumption of SSBs and breast cancer mortality. Women who consume more than two servings of SSBs/day are at higher risk of death
Mullee et al. [157]Higher mortality was found among participants who consumed more than two servings of SSBs/day. A positive association between consumption of SSBs and death from circulatory diseases
Alcaraz et al. [158]More than 184,000 deaths per year worldwide are attributed to SSB consumption
Yuan et al. [159]Higher SSB consumption positively correlated to proximal colon cancer mortality. SSB consumption enhances colorectal tumorigenesis
Liu et al. [173]
Chen et al. [174]
Higher SSB consumption associated with increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease
McCullough et al. [160]SSB consumption was positively associated with the risk of colorectal cancer
Cordova et al. [175]Ultraprocessed food consumption is associated with a higher incidence of multimorbidity. Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are more prevalent among consumers of ultraprocessed foods
Malik et al. [165]Consumption of SSBs promotes obesity in children and adults
Wang et al. [168],
Li et al. [176]
Higher consumption of SSBs is associated with higher risks for type 2 diabetes
Jiantao et al. [177]Consumption of SSBs is associated with a higher risk of developing prediabetes and insulin resistance
Wang et al. [170],
Danqing et al. [169]
Dose-dependent consumption of SSBs increases risks for depression
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bulaj, G.; Coleman, M.; Johansen, B.; Kraft, S.; Lam, W.; Phillips, K.; Rohaj, A. Redesigning Pharmacy to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Expanding Retail Spaces for Digital Therapeutics to Replace Consumer Products That Increase Mortality and Morbidity Risks. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040107

AMA Style

Bulaj G, Coleman M, Johansen B, Kraft S, Lam W, Phillips K, Rohaj A. Redesigning Pharmacy to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Expanding Retail Spaces for Digital Therapeutics to Replace Consumer Products That Increase Mortality and Morbidity Risks. Pharmacy. 2024; 12(4):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040107

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bulaj, Grzegorz, Melissa Coleman, Blake Johansen, Sarah Kraft, Wayne Lam, Katie Phillips, and Aarushi Rohaj. 2024. "Redesigning Pharmacy to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Expanding Retail Spaces for Digital Therapeutics to Replace Consumer Products That Increase Mortality and Morbidity Risks" Pharmacy 12, no. 4: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040107

APA Style

Bulaj, G., Coleman, M., Johansen, B., Kraft, S., Lam, W., Phillips, K., & Rohaj, A. (2024). Redesigning Pharmacy to Improve Public Health Outcomes: Expanding Retail Spaces for Digital Therapeutics to Replace Consumer Products That Increase Mortality and Morbidity Risks. Pharmacy, 12(4), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040107

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop