Exploring Pharmacists’ Perceptions of Their Current Role in Mental Health Trusts in England: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study assessed how pharmacists perceive the impact of their role in the mental health (MH) services in two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England and their views on this service. Methods: An interview-based study was conducted from September to December 2023 on Microsoft Teams® by interviewing the pharmacists involved in MH services in Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust & the Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Trust (BSMHFT) in England. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide containing questions related to pharmacists’ roles, activities, perceptions about the service, and future recommendations. Transcripts were prepared and analysed using thematic analysis. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Reading and was registered as a service evaluation with both Trusts. Results: A total of 11 participants attended the interviews. Most of the participants self-identified as women (n = 9), worked between 25 and 40 h on average weekly (n = 8), and had training in MH (n = 7). Few (n = 4) had work experience >20 years. Four themes emerged: (1) Roles and responsibilities—pharmacists play a vital role in medication management, clinical decision-making, and patient counselling; (2) satisfaction and positive impacts—a high job satisfaction derived from improved patient outcomes and effective multidisciplinary collaboration was reported; (3) challenges and barriers—stigma, role ambiguity, limited training in mental health, and institutional challenges (workload, funding, etc.), were identified; participants also expressed scepticism about the readiness of newly qualified prescriber pharmacists; (4) recommendations—participants advocated for enhanced MH content in pharmacy curricula, societal awareness and de-stigmatisation. Conclusions: Pharmacists viewed their role as integral to providing MH services; however, progress is impeded by challenges such as stigma, fragmented care, training gaps, and staffing shortages. It seemed unclear at the moment how the new prescriber-ready pharmacists will contribute to services. Additional findings from primary-care settings would provide a collective account of the current roles of pharmacists and their potential in MH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".