![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
Several extended and newly added pharmacy services were evaluated in different countries. This review aims to provide a summary of studies on attitudes, awareness, or perceptions toward various extended and drive-thru pharmacy services at community settings among pharmacists and the general public.
Methods
To find qualitative and descriptive quantitative studies, that reported on the attitudes, awareness, or perceptions of the general public and pharmacists toward the practice of any extended community pharmacy service and drive-thru pharmacy services in a community setting and conducted from March 2012 to March 2022. Researchers used databases such as Embase, Medline PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The reviewers extracted data independently using the PRISMA checklist.
Results
There were 55 studies found according to the inclusion criteria. Various extended pharmacy services (EPS) and drive-thru pharmacy services were noted in the community setting. Pharmaceutical care services and healthcare promotion services were the noticeable performed extended services. There were positive perceptions and attitudes toward extended and drive-thru pharmacy services among pharmacists and the public. However, some factors, such as lack of time and shortage of staff, affect the practice of those services.
Conclusion
Understanding the major concerns toward the provision of extended and drive-thru community pharmacy services and improving pharmacists’ skills through more training programs to provide such services efficiently. In the future, more reviews for EPS practice barriers are recommended to faceup all concerns and find standardized guidelines by stakeholders and organizations for efficient EPS practices.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00525-4.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00525-4.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author contributions
BFA, SCO, and RH contributed to the conception and design of the study. BFA imported the search results from all databases. BFA, FM, and LA managed the studies selection process from the title and abstract screening to full-text screening. BFA, FM, and LA managed the data extraction phase. BFA and FM contributed to the quality assessment process. BFA, SCO, and RH reviewed the final draft and proofread the article. All authors stated that they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its additional files).
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This systematic review was designed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered in the Prospero database (CRD42022314516). Ethical approval was not required as our study did not include confidential participant data and interventions.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Supplementary Information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.