The Future of Pharmacy Practice Research

  • Zaheer-Ud-Din BabarEmail author
  • Anna Birna Almarsdóttir


The chapter starts by outlining the current and future scenario related to pharmacy practice research. This chapter then sets the scene by discussing issues that are pertinent for practice research. These issues are changes in population demographics, changes in technology, the role of the pharmacy as an institution and consumer behaviour as well as changes in the pharmacy profession. It also outlines the major shifts in pharmacy practice research, which include interprofessional collaboration and teamwork with patients, describing and measuring outcomes of interventions as well as patients’ cultural diversity. It concludes by drawing attention to methodologies that would be most commonly used in future pharmacy practice research. Some of the future methodological challenges could be the emergence of big and complex datasets, dealing with electronic health records and pharmacy practice researchers’ adoption of a myriad of mixed methodologies. The Chapter also includes a conceptual model at the end.


  1. Almarsdottir AB, Kaae S, Traulsen JM. Opportunities and challenges in social pharmacy and pharmacy practice research. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;10(1):252–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almarsdóttir AB, Traulsen JM. Multimethod research into policy changes in the pharmacy sector – the Nordic case. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009;5(1):82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babar ZU, Gray A, Kiani A, Vogler S, Ballantyne P, Scahill S. The future of medicines use and access research: using the Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice as a platform for change. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2014;7:8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babar Z-U-D, Susan F. Identifying priority medicines policy issues for New Zealand. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e004415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardet JD, Vo TH, Bedouch P, Allenet B. Physicians and community pharmacists collaboration in primary care: a review of specific models. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2015;11:602–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr P. The boomer challenge. Trustee. 2014;67:13–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Blöndal AB. Bringing pharmaceutical care to primary care in Iceland. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iceland. 2017.Google Scholar
  8. Burckart GJ. Clinical pharmacology and clinical pharmacy: a marriage of necessity. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2012;19:19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadian Pharmacists Association. Blueprint for pharmacy: designing the future together. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Pharmacists Association; 2008. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.Google Scholar
  10. Gayomali C. Can you 3D print drugs? The week, 26 June. 2013.
  11. Health and Social Care Information Centre. General pharmaceutical services in England: 2002–03 to 2011–12. 2012.¼9731&q¼title%3a%22general+pharmaceutical+services%22&sort¼relevance&size¼10&page¼1#top.
  12. Herzlinger RE. Market-driven health care: who wins, who loses in the transformation of America’s largest service industry. New York: Addison–Wesley; 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Hindle K, Cutting N. Can applied entrepreneurial education enhance job satisfaction and financial performance? An empirical investigation in the Australian Pharmacy Profession. J Small Bus Manag. 2002;40:162–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaae S, Lind JLM, Genina N, Kälvemark Sporrong S. Unintended consequences for patients of future personalized pharmacoprinting. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40:321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaplan W, Wirtz VJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse A, Stolk P, Duthey B, Laing R. Priority medicines for Europe and the World: 2013 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Kingod N. The tinkering m-patient: co-constructing knowledge on how to live with type 1 diabetes through Facebook searching and sharing and offline tinkering with self-care. Health. 2018:1–17.
  17. Kronus CL. Occupational values, role orientations and work settings: the case of pharmacy. Socio Q. 1975;16:171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kymlicka W. The current state of multiculturalism in Canada and research themes on Canadian multiculturalism 2008–2010. 2010.
  19. Lewis NJW, Shimp LA, Rockafellow S, Tingen JM, Choe HM, Marcelino MA. The role of the pharmacist in patient-centered medical home practices: current perspectives. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2014;3:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ling AM, Panno NJ, Shader ME, Sobinsky RM, Whitehead HN, Hale KM. The evolving scope of pharmacy practice: perspectives from future pharmacists. 2008.
  21. Mak VSL, Clark A, Poulsen JH, et al. Pharmacists’ awareness of Australia’s health care reforms and their beliefs and attitudes about their current and future roles. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;20(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murdan S, Blum N, Francis SA, Slater E, Alem N, Munday M, Taylor J, Smith F. The global pharmacist. UCL School of Pharmacy. 2014.
  23. Nagaria RA, Hasan SS, Babar ZUD. Pharmacy, pharmaceuticals and public policy: solving the puzzle. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019;
  24. Pharmaceutical Care. Policies and practices for a safer, more responsible and cost-effective health system. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare. 2012.
  25. Raghupathi W, Raghupathi V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Inform Sci Syst. 2014;2:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenthal M, Austin Z, Tsuyuki RT. Are pharmacists the ultimate barrier to pharmacy practice change? CPJ. 2010;143(1):37–42.Google Scholar
  27. Scahill SL, Harrison J, Sheridan J. The ABC of New Zealand’s ten year vision for pharmacists: awareness, barriers and consultation. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17(3):135–42.Google Scholar
  28. Scottish Government. Prescription for excellence: a vision and action plan for the right pharmaceutical care through integrated partnerships and innovation. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2013. Scholar
  29. Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University. Patterns of medication use in the United States 2005: a report from the Slone Survey. 2005. Accessed 23 June 2008.
  30. Smith J, Picton C, Dayan M. Now or never: shaping pharmacy for the future, the report of the Commission on future models of care delivered through pharmacy November 2013. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2013. Scholar
  31. Snyder ME, Zillich AJ, Primack BA, Rice KR, McGivney MAS, Pringle JL, Smith RB. Exploring successful community pharmacist-physician collaborative working relationships using mixed methods. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2010;6(4):307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. 2010. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
  33. The Medical Futurist. The bright future of pharmacies. Downloaded 29. 2016. July 2019 from:
  34. Traulsen JM, Noerreslet M. The new consumer of medicine – the pharmacy technicians’ perspective. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26:203–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsuyuki RT, Schindel TJ. Changing Pharmacy Practice: The Leadership Challenge. Canadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue Des Pharmaciens Du Canada, 2008;141(3):174–180.
  36. U.S. Census Bureau. Population projections, U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2000–2050. 2014.
  37. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2019: highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423). 2019.Google Scholar
  38. Wettermark B, Elseviers M, Almarsdottir AB, Andersen M, Benko R, Bennie M, Eriksson I, Godman B, Krska J, Poluzzi E, Taxis K, Vander Stichele R, Vlahovic-Palcevski V. Introduction to drug utilization research. In: Elseviers M, et al., editors. Drug utilization research: methods and applications. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. p. 3–12. ISBN: 978-1-118-94978-8.Google Scholar
  39. Which. A test of your own medicine. Oct 2008. p. 12–15.Google Scholar
  40. Winkler F. Consumerism in health care: beyond the supermarket model. Policy Polit. 1987;15(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wisell K, Winblad U, Kälvemark Sporrong S. Diversity as salvation? – a comparison of the diversity rationale in the Swedish pharmacy ownership liberalization reform and the primary care choice reform. Health Policy. 2019;123:457. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy, School of Applied SciencesUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations