Featured Post from Aston University

Community pharmacy can play a ‘key clinical role’ in delivery of COVID-19 vaccinations – new research

Jun 17, 2021

5 min

Dr Ian Maidment



New research published in BMJ Open shows that community pharmacy could play a ‘key clinical role’ in the future role of COVID-19 vaccination programmes, according to a study led by Aston University in Birmingham, UK, in collaboration with UK and international researchers.


The team found that community pharmacists, as a ‘skilled clinical workforce’, could positively contribute, supporting the community in which they serve - by playing a critical role in ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.


The researchers working on the PERISCOPE study found that community pharmacy is uniquely placed to support individuals, because it is seen by the public as a credible, trustworthy service, which could be key to any future clinical role it might play, especially where addressing vaccine hesitancy in ‘seldom heard’ communities. They are therefore calling on decision-makers to endorse and provide their support for a public health role for community pharmacy.


Across the UK, community pharmacy is a critical part of primary care. According to the Kings Fund, as of the end of March 2019, there were more than 11,500 community pharmacies in England alone. It is viewed as one of the four pillars of the primary care system, along with general practice, optical services and dentistry. It has also, in areas of the UK, helped to deliver COVID-19 vaccinations.


The study included partners from the Universities of Sheffield, Oxford, Hull and Bradford in the UK, as well as internationally, the University of British Columbia and University of Tasmania. The group reviewed more than a hundred documents including peer reviewed articles, blogs and websites on the role of community pharmacy during COVID-19 and other previous pandemics.


Their findings were discussed with more than 30 health professionals and members of the public, to ensure that the findings made sense in the real world. Health professionals included pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, dispensers, counter assistants, and GPs, together with members of the public from a range of diverse ethnic backgrounds.


Several recommendations were made by the researchers from the findings of the study. Most significantly the group found it was imperative that policy and practice should focus on the clinical role of community pharmacy.


Dr Ian Maidment, reader in clinical pharmacy at Aston University and former community pharmacist leading PERSICOPE, said:


“We need to use community pharmacy to a much greater extent for COVID-19 vaccination, particularly for boosters against new variants such as the Delta (Indian) variant. The current model (for example, the large hubs) may not be sustainable in the longer term, particularly if annual COVID-19 vaccination is required.

“Our work found some key ways to make this happen. The easy access and local convenience of high street pharmacies makes them an ideal location for vaccinating at-risk populations.”



The study includes guidance for policy makers:

• Have a clear role for community pharmacy in response to the public health agenda, with that role championed by decision-makers

• Involve frontline community pharmacists in the development of policy and service specification in relation to vaccination

• Provide prompt, clear, consistent guidelines with adequate detail and enough flexibility to allow community pharmacies to adapt the guidelines to meet the needs of their local population

• Provide adequate funding and reimbursement for the delivery and necessary adaptations of any new services community pharmacies are asked to deliver

• Provide pharmacy teams with adequate systems to deliver this new role and then trust them to deliver.


Hadar Zaman, head of pharmacy and medical sciences at University of Bradford and a community pharmacist, said:


“Our research has highlighted the important role community pharmacy has played in overcoming vaccine hesitancy, particularly in ethnic minority communities who have been disproportionately affected by COVID and subsequent mortality.

“What comes out very strongly, especially in areas of high social deprivation, is that community pharmacists have worked very closely with their local communities addressing concerns around vaccine safety.

“It is through these strongly rooted relationships in local communities that we will ensure vaccine uptake rates in ethnic minority and the wider population can be further improved. Therefore, community pharmacy needs to be seen as an essential delivery partner if the Government is to achieve its national vaccination coverage in the short and long term”.


PERISCOPE searched for the best evidence across the world and the team included international collaborators. The findings therefore have international relevance.


Maura MacPhee, professor of nursing, University of British Columbia and member of the research team, said:


“Our review findings and recommendations for decision-makers, community pharmacists and pharmacy users are adaptable and relevant internationally, including my country, Canada, where community pharmacy has a major role to play in COVID-19 vaccination programmes.”


Juanita Breen, also a member of the PERISCOPE team and associate professor of dementia studies at Wicking Dementia Centre, School of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, added:


"This study demonstrates how pharmacists can contribute towards this important public health initiative and enhance the uptake of the vaccine.

“It provides important learnings for other countries on how best to utilise the skills of our most accessible health professional - the community pharmacist."


Professor Claire Anderson, chair of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s English Board said:


“This research clearly demonstrates the vital role community pharmacy has played during the pandemic, providing essential advice to communities and tackling health inequalities in areas of high social deprivation.

“Policy makers and commissioners need to take forward the recommendations of this research and ensure the strengths of the community pharmacy network are maximised for the benefits of patients.”


Alastair Buxton, director of NHS Services at the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, said:


“This research provides a timely examination of the role community pharmacy teams have played in supporting their communities to fight back against COVID-19.
“By keeping their doors open throughout, pharmacies have maintained day-to-day activities, and managed increased demand for many services - including advice on the management of minor illness. They have also substantially increased the number of flu vaccinations administered and played a key part in the COVID-19 vaccination programme.

“These findings will help guide policy in the later stages of the pandemic and guide practice in any future pandemics.”


Tony Kelly, a diabetes ambassador, Diabetes Strategic Patient Partner - NHS Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group and member of PERISCOPE, said:


"Community pharmacists are ideally placed at the forefront of the vaccination agenda as they are the nucleus of ethnically diverse communities and are often the first point of contact for most people."


PERISCOPE was jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).



Connect with:
Dr Ian Maidment

Dr Ian Maidment

Professor in Clinical Pharmacy

Professor Maidment has a focus on the use of medication in day-to-day practice.

Medication OptimisationMental HealthCommunity PharmacyRealist Research MethodsDementia
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by