継続的な薬学教育改革や臨床教育へのシフトに伴い，研究実績の低迷や大学院進学者減少といった問題が報告されてきた．この問題の解決のため，研究する上での障壁を明確にし，薬学教育モデル・コア・カリキュラム令和4年度版（2022 MCC）のG.研究能力における各学習目標の自己評価能力と，総合的な研究能力の自己評価との関連を評価することを目的とした．対象者は薬剤師の60%以上が従事している地域薬局または病院に勤務している者とした．薬剤師は431名（81.5%）が「研究は必要である」と回答し，476名（89.9%）が臨床現場での研究実施に障壁を感じていた．臨床能力育成のための学部教育の必要性は，465名（87.9%）が「必要である」と回答した．2022 MCCのGの学修目標と研究実施能力に関する自己評価の関連を評価したところ，すべての能力について自己評価は低かった．そのため，研究実施時に感じる様々な障壁に対する支援と研究能力育成のための学部教育の充実の必要性が明らかとなった．
Background: When the Japanese School Education Act was implemented in 2006, pharmacy education became a six-year clinical program from a four-year science-based program. Ongoing educational changes led to a decline in research and in the number of students entering graduate-level education to pursue research. Objective: To identify the research competence and barriers to conducting research, as well as to evaluate the relationship between self-assessed competence and the competence in the research learning objectives of the Model Core Curriculum (MCC). Methods: Based on the responses of Japanese pharmacists, community pharmacies and hospitals where more than 60% of pharmacists are employed were selected as research sites. A web-based survey investigated individual backgrounds, and SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used to analyze the results. Results: Regarding the need for more research, 431 (81.5%) respondents answered that it was necessary, whereas 476 (89.9%) pharmacists experienced barriers to conducting research in clinical settings. Regarding the need to conduct clinical research as an undergraduate, 465 (87.9%) pharmacists answered that it was necessary. In reviewing the relationship between the MCC 2022 learning objectives and self-assessments of competencies, the self-assessments were low in all research competencies. Conclusions: The survey revealed that all pharmacists, whether in Japan or elsewhere, face similar research barriers and need support to overcome them, plus develop foundational research skills in the undergraduates.
The services provided by health professionals, along with the competencies and educational levels required to deliver them, are determined by societal and governmental needs1,2). Therefore, pharmacist education must be regularly reviewed and revised.
The Japanese pharmacy education system was changed from a four-year program to a six-year program in 2006 (hereinafter abbreviated as 4-YP and 6-YP)3). The 6-YP is the core education program for pharmacist training, whereas scientist-pharmacist training remains a 4-YP. Due to the revision of the law, more than 70% of pharmacy schools offer six years of pharmacist-training education. After the Model Core Curriculum (MCC) of the 6-YP was implemented, several problems emerged (e.g., it became difficult for each university to establish its own identity), and the MCC was revised with an approximately 25% reduction in the amount of content in 20154). Recently, the information handled in medical fields (including big data and artificial intelligence) and the role of public health in the community have expanded. Therefore, the educational content of Japanese medicine, dentistry and pharmacy was partially standardized and revised again in 2022 (hereinafter abbreviated as 2022 MCC)5).
Due to these continuous educational reforms and the shift in pharmacy education toward clinical education under the 6-YP, problems such as a decline in pharmacy practice research and a decrease in the number of students who enter graduate education have gradually become apparent. Efforts to resolve these issues have begun to be reported in Japan6–8). Since medical healthcare has developed through the advancement of science and technology and the efforts of researchers, and since it has contributed to the development of services for patients, consumers and medical technology, the continuation of these issues is a major problem. Therefore, in September 2024, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) reported a newly allocated budget for “investigative research” to develop university doctoral programs in pharmaceutical sciences9).
The International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) has consistently provided “A global competency framework” in 2012 and 20202,10), and “Global Competency Framework for Educators and Trainers in Pharmacy” was published in 202211). These frameworks include competencies such as “conduct research in the workplace.” A report on the need for clinical research surveyed the interest, experience and confidence of hospital pharmacists in Qatari Hamad Medical Corporation (HMCs). The results revealed that interest in research was significantly greater than experience and confidence, but there were barriers related to support (e.g., government) and research culture12). In Nigeria, a similar survey was conducted in 201613), and the authors recommended training programs and the establishment of a Pharmacy Practice Research Network to increase pharmacists’ research capacity. These reports suggest that although pharmacists are expected to conduct clinical research, they are not confident in doing so. Furthermore, in 2018, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy reported that the research domain adequately covers the pharmacy degree (in contrast to the situation in Japan), while the development of “power skills”, which are required to support the development of researchers, varies widely14).
The aim of our study was to (i) describe the research experience of pharmacists, (ii) identify the barriers to conducting research, including educational needs, and (iii) evaluate the relationship between self-assessed overall research competence and competence in individual learning objectives from the research section of the MCC.
In Japan, retail pharmacy settings include community pharmacies and drugstores. Community pharmacies mainly dispense prescription medications, whereas drugstores primarily sell over-the-counter drugs and may also dispense prescription medications. In this study, community pharmacies and hospitals, where more than 60% of Japanese pharmacists are employed, were selected as places of employment15).
The survey was conducted via a web-based platform to capture the diverse backgrounds, ages, and workplaces of pharmacists across Japan, including those educated at both public and private universities. The sample size was calculated with a tolerance error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, and a population proportion of 0.5. Using the formula n = (1.96/E)2 × p(1 – p), the required sample size was estimated to be 385. Therefore, we set a target of more than 400 participants, taking into account the capacity of the survey companies.
2. Data collectionThe survey was conducted in Japanese in two stages to assess the responses to Step 1 before proceeding to Step 2. Step 1 collected data related to self-reported barriers to research involvement and research-related educational needs. Step 2 collected data related to research competencies using the learning objectives of Section G (“Research”) in the 2022 MCC (hereinafter abbreviated as 2022MCC-G). Both steps were initially planned to be conducted with the same target group, but due to the termination of the web-based survey service by NEXTIT, the survey company was changed to Intage, Inc. The web survey was ordered to NEXTIT Inc. and Intage Inc. and used the survey panels owned by both companies; NEXTIT and Intage Inc. verified the registration of pharmacists using license numbers. All questionnaire items are shown in Table 1.
Questionnaire for pharmacists (STEP 1 and STEP 2)
| Questionnaire items of STEP1 |
|---|
| Q1. Total number of years working as a pharmacist |
| 1. 5 years ≤ 2. 10 years ≤ 3. 15 years ≤ 4. 15 years > |
| Q2. Workplace |
| 1. Hospital 2. Community pharmacies |
| Q3. Undergraduate education for pharmacists |
| 1. Four-year program (4-YP) 2. Six-year program (6-YP) |
| Q4. Certified pharmacist or Specialized pharmacist or Ph.D. (Multiple answers allowed） |
| Studying to become a specialized pharmacist or certified pharmacist or Ph.D. |
| 1. Specialized pharmacist 2. Certified pharmacist 3. Ph.D. 4. Nothing |
| Q5. Do you think pharmacists need to conduct clinical research? |
| 1. Not at all necessary 2. Not necessary 3. Not truly necessary 4. Somewhat necessary 5. Necessary 6. Very necessary |
| Q6. Do you ever want to develop issues into research in clinical settings? |
| 1. Not at all 2. No 3. Not often. 4. Occacrionally 5. Often 6. Usually |
| Q7. Have you ever identified issues and developed them into research in clinical settings? |
| 1. Not at all 2. No 3. Not often. 4. Occacrionally 5. Often 6. Usually |
| Q8. Do you need support to identify issues and develop them into research in clinical settings? |
| 1. Not at all necessary 2. Not necessary 3. Not truly necessary 4. Somewhat necessary 5. Necessary 6. Very necessary |
| Q9. What kind of support do you need? |
| 1. Not at all necessary 2. Not necessary 3. Not truly necessary 4. Somewhat necessary 5. Necessary 6. Very necessary |
| i) Understanding or support from family ii) Understanding or support from work supervisors iii) Understanding or support from work colleagues iv) instructions from undergraduate education seminar teachers v) Instruction from universities vi) Support from academic organizations vii) Financial viii) Cooperation and understanding from multiple professions ix) Medical institutions (pharmacists’ associations, hospital analgesic dentists) |
| Q10. Are there barriers to identifying issues and developing them into research in clinical settings? |
| 1. Not at all 2. No 3. Not often. 4. Occacrionally 5. Often 6. Usually |
| Q11. What are your barriers? |
| i) Understanding or support from family ii) Understanding or support from work supervisors iii) Understanding or support from work colleagues iv) Instruction from undergraduate education seminar teachers v) Lifelong learning at university vi) Support from academic organizations vii) financial viii) cooperation and understanding from multiple professions ix) medical institutions (pharmacists’ associations, hospital analgesic dentists) x) I’m not sure |
| 1. Not at all 2. No 3. Not often. 4. Occacrionally 5. Often 6. Usually |
| Q12. Do you think you need further education in your undergraduate education to do clinical research? |
| 1. Not at all necessary 2. Not necessary 3. Not truly necessary 4. Somewhat necessary 5. Necessary 6. Very necessary |
| Q13. What kind of research education do you think was needed in undergraduate education? |
| 1. Not at all necessary 2. Not necessary 3. Not truly necessary 4. Somewhat necessary 5. Necessary 6. Very necessary |
| To identify problems/issues |
| To search for articles to solve the problems/issues found |
| To read articles (Japanese/English) |
| To formulate research problems (hypotheses) if necessary |
| To examine methods to solve these research problems |
| To implement methods and derive results |
| To consider the results. |
| To understand the limitations of the research |
| To continue with (i)–(viii) |
| other ( ) Thank you for your time. |
| Questionnaire items of STEP 2 |
| Q1. Gender: 1. Man 2. Woman 3. I don’t want to say |
| Q2. Undergraduate education for pharmacists |
| 1. 4-year pharmacy education program. 2. 6-year pharmacy education program |
| Q3. Which university is in your undergraduate education |
| 1. Public university 2. Private university |
| Q4. Workplace |
| 1. Community pharmacies 2. Drug storage 3. Hospitals |
| Q5. Total number of years working as a pharmacist |
| 1. 5 years ≤ 2. 10 years ≤ 3. 15 years ≤ 4. 20 years ≤ 5. 20 years > |
| Q6. Have you ever received research education or training? |
| 1. Nothing 2. Workshop 3. Seminar 4. Short course 5. undergraduate education 6. Master’s course 7. Doctoral course |
| Q7. Do you know that you had to undergo an ethical review to conduct research? |
| 1. I know 2. I don’t know |
| Q8. Do you have an ICRWeb certificate number? |
| 1. I have 2. I don’t have |
| Q9. Have you ever conducted research to prove a hypothesis? |
| 1. Yes 2. No |
| Q10. Do you know how to submit your outcome to academic journals? |
| 1. I know 2. I don’t know |
| Q11. Have you ever submitted your work to a national journal? |
| Have submitted themselves or been a corresponding author |
| Has never submitted but has been a coauthor |
| Have never submitted |
| Q12. Have you ever submitted your work to an international journal? |
| Have submitted themselves or been a corresponding author |
| Has never submitted but has been a coauthor |
| Have never submitted |
| Q13. Have you ever presented at a national conference? |
| Have presented myself |
| Have never presented myself but have co-presenters |
| Have never presented |
| Q14. Have you ever presented at an international conference? |
| Have presented myself |
| Have never presented myself but have co-presenters |
| Have never presented |
| Please answer all of the following questions by selecting from the options below. |
| 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree |
| Q15. Do you have the competency to conduct research? |
| Q16. Can you explain the academic importance of your research? |
| Q17. Can you explain the social significance of your research? |
| Q18. Can you draw scientific inferences? |
| Q19. Can you collect domestic knowledge and information? |
| Q20. Can you collect knowledge and information from abroad? |
| Q21. Can you evaluate information through critical thinking? |
| Q22. Can you look at a problem from a bird’s eye view and formulate a hypothesis? |
| Q23. Can you discover and identify issues to be explored? |
| Q24. Can you construct research methods and designs? |
| Q25. Can you explain research misconduct? |
| Q26. Can you explain research codes of conduct and research ethics? |
| Q27. Can you explain the laws, regulations and guidelines to be complied with? |
| Q28. Do you have a research environment for hypothesis testing? |
| Q29. Can you analyze the obtained data using statistical and other methods? |
| Q30. Can the results be creatively verified from a bird’s-eye view? |
| Q31. Can the results be evaluated creatively and from a bird’s-eye view? |
| Q32. Can you explain what should be written in the ‘Background’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ sections? |
| Thank you for your time. |
Step 1: A survey of 13 items related to barriers to conducting research in clinical settings, the necessary education, and pharmacists’ recognition of these issues was conducted for one week from 15 January 2024 (NEXTIT Inc., Kobe, Japan)16).
Step 2: A survey with 32 items related to competencies (including self-assessments) for conducting research was conducted for one week from 12 June 2024 (Intage Inc., Tokyo, Japan)17).
Responses were collected as follows:
Step 1: For Q5–Q13, participants were asked to answer each question on a 6-point Likert scale (“1. not at all necessary; 2. not necessary; 3. not really necessary; 4. somewhat necessary; 5. necessary; 6. very necessary” or “1. not at all; 2. no; 3. not often; 4. occasionally; 5. often; 6. usually”).
Step 2: For Q15–Q32, the questionnaire items were learning objectives of 2022MCC-G, and pharmacists were asked to provide self-assessments using a 5-point Likert scale (1. strongly disagree; 2. disagree; 3. neither; 4. agree; 5. strongly agree).
3. Data analysisIn Step 1, the demographics of the pharmacists, their research experience, and barriers to conducting research were surveyed and presented using descriptive statistics.
In Step 2, demographic characteristics and pharmacists’ self-assessments (based on learning objectives of 2022MCC-G) were collected. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were normally distributed. The results showed that all data had p < 0.001, and therefore Mann–Whitney U tests or Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare the scaled self-assessments. These data were mainly compared using the median or mean rank, and the mean and standard deviation values were also listed (Table 3).
To assess the relationship between Q15 (“Do you have the competency to conduct research?”) and the self-assessments of learning objectives, Q15 was treated as the objective variable and the self-assessment of each learning objective in 2022MCC-G was treated as an explanatory variable. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated. Highly correlated question items were identified (correlation coefficient ≥0.8 between items: Q22 and Q21, Q27 and Q26, Q29 and Q30 or Q31, and Q32 and Q30 or Q31; all p < 0.001). Since these question items contained similar content, Q22, Q27, Q29, Q30 and Q32 were deleted from the regression model and analyses.
A graph was created with the correlation coefficient between the objective variable and each explanatory variable on the horizontal axis and the percentage of high self-assessment scores on the vertical axis (Fig. 3). We defined “high self-assessment” as scores of 4 or 5 (“agree” or “strongly agree”). Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 25.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and Excel Statistics (ESUMI Co., Tokyo, Japan).
4. Ethical considerationsThe Ethics Committee approved Steps 1 and 2 (application no. 23-09, December 2023; no. 24-05, June 2024). To protect personal information, the study was anonymous, and data from the web survey contained no identifying information; therefore, individuals could not be identified. There was no disadvantage for individuals who refused to answer the questionnaire. A code was assigned to the data file to ensure that only study personnel could access the data via a specific password-protected personal computer. The purpose of the survey was stated on the first screen, and only respondents who stated that they understood and agreed to the purpose were able to proceed with the questionnaire.
The demographics of the respondents are shown in Table 2A. Fewer pharmacists have graduated from a 6-YP than from a 4-YP (Q3), and 376 (71.1%) have worked for more than 15 years (Q1). The four-year program comprises both the former and the revised curricula; however, because this survey did not ask respondents to specify which curriculum they completed, no detailed analysis was performed.
Respondents’ characteristics
| A) The respondents of STEP 1, Q1–Q4 (n = 529) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire | Number | % | |
Q1. Total number of years working as a pharmacist |
5 years ≤ | 7 | 1.3 |
| 10 years ≤ | 53 | 10 | |
| 15 years ≤ | 93 | 17.6 | |
| 15 years > | 376 | 71.1 | |
| Q2. Workplace | Hospital | 208 | 39.3 |
| Community pharmacy | 321 | 60.7 | |
Q3. Undergraduate education for pharmacists |
Four-year program (4-YP) | 485 | 91.7 |
| Six-year program (6-YP) | 44 | 8.3 | |
Q4. Certified pharmacist or Specialized pharmacist or Ph.D. (Multiple answers allowed） |
Studying to become a specialized pharmacist or certified pharmacist or Ph.D. | 57 | 10.8 |
| Specialized pharmacist | 57 | 10.8 | |
| Certified pharmacist | 361 | 68.2 | |
| Ph.D. | 31 | 5.9 | |
| Nothing | 104 | 19.7 | |
| B) The respondents of STEP2, Q1–Q14 (n = 659) | |||
| Questionnaire | Number | % | |
| Q1 Gender | Male | 265 | 40.2 |
| Female | 394 | 59.8 | |
Q2. Undergraduate education for pharmacists |
Four-year program (4-YP) | 536 | 81.3 |
| Six-year program (6-YP) | 123 | 18.7 | |
| Q3. Former School | Public | 107 | 16.2 |
| Private | 552 | 83.8 | |
| Q4. Workplace | Community pharmacy | 433 | 65.7 |
| Drug Store | 32 | 4.9 | |
| Hospital | 164 | 24.9 | |
| Others | 30 | 4.6 | |
Q5. Total number of years working as a pharmacist |
5 years ≤ | 37 | 5.6 |
| 10 years ≤ | 77 | 11.7 | |
| 15 years ≤ | 122 | 18.5 | |
| 20 years ≤ | 125 | 19.0 | |
| 20 years > | 298 | 45.2 | |
| Q6. Your Research Education | Research-related workshop as lifelong learning | 139 | 21.1 |
| Research-related seminars as lifelong learning | 82 | 12.4 | |
| Research-related short curricula as lifelong learning | 5 | 0.8 | |
| Undergraduate education | 116 | 17.6 | |
| Masters’ curse | 22 | 3.3 | |
| Doctoral course | 5 | 0.8 | |
| Others | 1 | 0.2 | |
| No research education experience | 289 | 43.9 | |
| Q7. Do you know that you had to undergo an ethical review to conduct research? | Yes, I know. | 376 | 57.1 |
| No, I did not know. | 283 | 42.9 | |
| Q8. Do you have an ICRWeb certificate number? | Yes, I have the certificate. | 37 | 5.6 |
| No, I don’t have the certificate. | 622 | 94.4 | |
| Q9. Have you ever conducted research to prove a hypothesis? | Yes. | 67 | 10.2 |
| No. | 592 | 89.8 | |
| Q10. Do you know how to submit your outcome to academic journals? | Yes. | 155 | 23.5 |
| No. | 504 | 76.5 | |
| Q11. Have you ever submitted your work to a national journal? | Yes, I have submitted my own work or been a corresponding author. | 43 | 6.5 |
| No, I have never submitted my own work but I have been a coauthor. | 89 | 13.5 | |
| No, I have never submitted my work. | 527 | 80.0 | |
| Q12. Have you ever submitted your work to an international journal? | Yes, I have submitted my work or been a corresponding author. | 27 | 4.1 |
| I have never submitted my own work, but I have been a coauthor. | 37 | 5.6 | |
| No, I have never submitted my work. | 595 | 90.3 | |
| Q13. Have you ever presented at a national conference? | Yes, I have presented myself. | 126 | 19.1 |
| I have never presented myself, but I have done so with co-presenters. | 51 | 7.7 | |
| No, I have never presented. | 482 | 73.1 | |
| Q14. Have you ever presented at an international conference? | Yes, I have presented myself. | 14 | 2.1 |
| I have never presented myself, but I have done so with co-presenters. | 25 | 3.8 | |
| No, I have never presented. | 620 | 94.1 | |
Regarding pharmacists’ perceptions of the need for research (Q5), 431 (81.5%) answered “necessary” (including “somewhat necessary”, “necessary” and “very necessary”) (Fig. 1A). Regarding whether they would like to conduct research (Q6), 281 (53.1%) pharmacists reported that they recognized issues in clinical settings and wanted to conduct research (excluding “not at all”, “no” and “not often”) (Fig. 1B). However, regarding their research experience (Q7: Have you ever identified issues and developed them into research in clinical settings?), 236 pharmacists (44.6%) reported having no such experience, including responses of “not at all” and “no” (Fig. 1C).
Pharmacists’ perception of research in clinical settings (n = 529). A) Q5. Is clinical research necessary for pharmacists? B) Q6. Do you ever want to develop issues into research in clinical settings? C) Q7. Have you ever identified issues and developed them into research in clinical settings? D) Q8. Do you need support to identify issues and develop them into research in clinical settings? E) Q10. Are there barriers to identifying issues and developing them into research in clinical settings?
Regarding whether support is necessary for research (Q8), a total of 391 pharmacists (73.9%) considered support for conducting research to be at least somewhat necessary (Fig. 1D). Regarding the type of support needed (Q9) (n = 454; excluding those who selected “not at all necessary” or “not necessary” in Q8), “(ii) understanding from supervisors at work” was the most frequently selected at 443 (97.5%), whereas “(v) instruction from university” was the least frequently selected at 400 (88.1%). Respondents indicated that they needed support in all categories, in the following order of frequency: (vii) financial support, (viii) cooperation and understanding from multiple professions, (iii) understanding or support from colleagues, (ix) support from medical institutions, (vi) support from academic organizations, (iv) instruction from undergraduate seminar teachers, and (i) understanding or support from family.
Regarding barriers (Q10), a total of 476 (89.9%) pharmacists experienced barriers to conducting research in clinical settings (excluding “not at all” and “no”) (Fig. 1E).
3. Barriers to conducting research and required educationThe 476 pharmacists who answered “yes” to Q10 were asked about specific barriers (Q11). The most common barrier was “financial”, selected by 422 pharmacists (88.6%), followed by “understanding or support from workplace colleagues” (410; 86.1%) and “understanding or support from workplace supervisors” (409; 85.9%) (Fig. 2A).
Pharmacists’ barriers to and education needed for pharmacists to conduct research in clinical settings (n = 529). A) Pharmacists’ Barriers. B) Education needed for pharmacists to conduct research in clinical settings.
To understand the competencies that should be developed, we asked about the need for education to perform clinical research in undergraduate education (Q12). A total of 465 (87.9%) pharmacists answered that education to perform clinical research was “necessary” (excluding “not at all” or “no”). Q13 was asked of these 465 respondents, and the results are shown in Fig. 2B. For all competency items (i)–(ix), more than 90% of respondents answered that undergraduate education is necessary. Among them, “the competency to consider the results” was selected as “necessary” or “very necessary” by the highest number of respondents (341; 73.3%).
The demographics of the respondents are shown in Table 2B. Fewer pharmacists graduated from the 6-YP (Q2), and 423 (64.2%) pharmacists had worked for more than 15 years (Q5). The four-year program comprises both the former and the revised curricula; however, because this survey did not ask respondents to specify which curriculum they completed, no detailed analysis was performed. The “other” category included public offices, pharmaceutical companies, etc. (Q4). A total of 289 (43.9%) respondents reported having no experience with research education (Q6). Only 67 (10.2%) pharmacists had conducted their own hypothesis-driven research (Q9), and 177 (26.9%) had presented research at national conferences, including as co-researchers (Q13). Even fewer had presented at or published in international conferences or journals (Q12, Q14).
2. Self-assessment of the competency to conduct researchTable 3 shows the results of participants’ self-assessments based on learning objectives of 2022MCC-G (Q15–Q32).
Self-assessment of the competency to conduct research
| Questionnaire | Gender | Mann–Whitney Utest | University Category | Mann–Whitney Utest | Workplace(df = 3) | Kruskal–Wallis test | Kruskal–Wallis test adjusted p-value | adjusted p-value of place | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man (n = 265) | Woman (n = 394) | Public (n = 107) | Private (n = 552) | 1. Community Pharmacy(n = 433) | 2. Drug Store (n = 32) | 3. Hospital (n = 164) | 4. Other (n = 30) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| mean | S.D. | Median | mean | S.D. | Median | mean | S.D. | Median | mean | S.D. | Median | mean | S.D. | mean rank | mean | S.D. | mean rank | mean | S.D. | mean rank | mean | S.D. | mean rank | ||||||
| Q15. Do you have competency to conduct research? | 2.45 | 1.04 | 2.00 | 2.14 | 0.91 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.59 | 1.14 | 2.00 | 2.20 | 0.93 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.22 | 0.95 | 321.96 | 2.16 | 0.81 | 317.00 | 2.35 | 1.03 | 345.10 | 2.57 | 1.22 | 400.98 | 0.24 | ||
| Q16. Can you explain the academic importance of your research? | 2.83 | 1.06 | 3.00 | 2.49 | 0.89 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.92 | 1.01 | 3.00 | 2.57 | 0.96 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 2.55 | 0.92 | 315.62 | 2.72 | 1.05 | 341.44 | 2.74 | 1.04 | 352.20 | 3.03 | 1.10 | 404.00 | 0.02* | 0.06 | 1–4 |
| Q17. Can you explain the social significance of your research? | 2.92 | 1.06 | 3.00 | 2.57 | 0.92 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 2.99 | 1.02 | 3.00 | 2.66 | 0.98 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 2.66 | 0.97 | 320.47 | 2.72 | 1.08 | 324.17 | 2.79 | 1.01 | 344.48 | 3.10 | 1.09 | 395.22 | 0.11 | ||
| Q18. Can you draw scientific inferences? | 2.77 | 1.02 | 3.00 | 2.38 | 0.84 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.80 | 0.98 | 3.00 | 2.49 | 0.92 | 2.00 | 0.01* | 2.46 | 0.90 | 316.06 | 2.63 | 0.91 | 347.89 | 2.65 | 0.98 | 350.32 | 2.97 | 1.10 | 400.98 | 0.02* | 0.08 | 1–4 |
| Q19. Can you collect domestic knowledge and information? | 2.98 | 1.04 | 3.00 | 2.64 | 0.92 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 3.08 | 0.96 | 3.00 | 2.72 | 0.98 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 2.68 | 0.93 | 311.20 | 2.78 | 0.97 | 320.69 | 3.01 | 1.06 | 373.28 | 3.03 | 1.13 | 374.67 | 0.00** | 0.00** | 1–3 |
| Q20. Can you collect knowledge and information from abroad? | 2.51 | 1.04 | 2.00 | 2.20 | 0.86 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.76 | 1.10 | 3.00 | 2.24 | 0.89 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.20 | 0.85 | 308.61 | 2.38 | 1.07 | 335.72 | 2.56 | 1.03 | 372.30 | 2.77 | 1.19 | 401.37 | 0.00** | 0.00* 0.04* |
1–3 1–4 |
| Q21. Can you evaluate information through critical thinking? | 2.73 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 2.33 | 0.82 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.76 | 0.99 | 3.00 | 2.44 | 0.90 | 2.00 | 0.01* | 2.41 | 0.88 | 314.59 | 2.63 | 0.91 | 352.03 | 2.63 | 0.97 | 356.83 | 2.77 | 1.01 | 382.27 | 0.02* | 0.06 | 1–3 |
| Q22. Can you look at a problem from a bird’s eye view and formulate a hypothesis? | 2.77 | 1.03 | 3.00 | 2.38 | 0.87 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.82 | 0.93 | 3.00 | 2.48 | 0.95 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.44 | 0.93 | 313.15 | 2.53 | 0.84 | 327.67 | 2.71 | 0.99 | 363.06 | 2.90 | 1.12 | 394.97 | 0.01* | 0.02* | 1–3 |
| Q23. Can you discover and identify issues to be explored? | 2.77 | 1.03 | 3.00 | 2.52 | 0.91 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.76 | 0.99 | 3.00 | 2.59 | 0.96 | 3.00 | 0.20 | 2.55 | 0.93 | 318.19 | 2.69 | 1.09 | 328.17 | 2.76 | 1.00 | 356.79 | 2.80 | 1.19 | 356.00 | 0.11 | ||
| Q24. Can you construct research methods and designs? | 2.59 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 2.24 | 0.83 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.62 | 1.01 | 2.00 | 2.33 | 0.89 | 2.00 | 0.02* | 2.27 | 0.84 | 311.79 | 2.31 | 0.90 | 316.12 | 2.59 | 1.00 | 368.46 | 2.80 | 1.21 | 397.43 | 0.00** | 0.00** | 1–3 |
| Q25. Can you explain research misconduct? | 3.06 | 1.07 | 3.00 | 2.80 | 1.01 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 3.24 | 1.02 | 3.00 | 2.84 | 1.03 | 3.00 | 0.00** | 2.79 | 1.01 | 310.16 | 2.91 | 1.15 | 331.64 | 3.15 | 1.04 | 374.02 | 3.20 | 1.16 | 373.93 | 0.00** | 0.00** | 1–3 |
| Q26. Can you explain research codes of conduct and research ethics? | 2.78 | 1.09 | 3.00 | 2.45 | 0.91 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.89 | 1.03 | 3.00 | 2.53 | 0.98 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.47 | 0.95 | 310.11 | 2.50 | 0.92 | 314.70 | 2.81 | 1.03 | 372.70 | 3.03 | 1.22 | 400.07 | 0.00** | 0.00** | 1–3 |
| Q27. Can you explain the laws, regulations and guidelines to be complied with? | 2.81 | 1.07 | 3.00 | 2.46 | 0.95 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.84 | 1.06 | 3.00 | 2.56 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.02* | 2.48 | 0.96 | 308.29 | 2.59 | 0.95 | 330.00 | 2.85 | 1.06 | 373.87 | 3.07 | 1.26 | 403.37 | 0.00** | 0.00** 0.03* |
1–3 1–4 |
| Q28. Do you have a research environment for hypothesis testing? | 2.22 | 1.01 | 2.00 | 1.88 | 0.84 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.24 | 1.07 | 2.00 | 1.97 | 0.89 | 2.00 | 0.02* | 1.88 | 0.85 | 307.14 | 1.88 | 0.71 | 314.22 | 2.33 | 1.05 | 384.91 | 2.30 | 1.09 | 376.62 | 0.00** | 0.00** | 1–3 |
| Q29. Can you analyse the obtained data using statistical and other methods? | 2.44 | 1.08 | 2.00 | 2.12 | 0.84 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.56 | 1.08 | 2.00 | 2.19 | 0.91 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.12 | 0.87 | 307.93 | 2.31 | 1.00 | 335.70 | 2.46 | 1.02 | 369.06 | 2.90 | 1.24 | 428.98 | 0.00** | 0.00** 0.00** |
1–3 1–4 |
| Q30. Can the results be creatively verified from a bird’s eye view? | 2.58 | 1.05 | 2.00 | 2.24 | 0.86 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.73 | 0.98 | 3.00 | 2.31 | 0.93 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.24 | 0.88 | 306.10 | 2.47 | 1.02 | 343.92 | 2.61 | 1.00 | 372.74 | 2.97 | 1.19 | 426.43 | 0.00** | 0.00** 0.00** |
1–3 1–4 |
| Q31. Can the results be evaluated creatively and from a bird’s eye view? | 2.51 | 1.04 | 2.00 | 2.17 | 0.82 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.66 | 1.04 | 3.00 | 2.24 | 0.89 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.18 | 0.84 | 308.35 | 2.25 | 0.84 | 319.39 | 2.54 | 1.02 | 372.13 | 2.90 | 1.21 | 423.42 | 0.00** | 0.00** 0.00** |
1–3 1–4 |
| Q32. Can you explain what should be written in the ‘Background’, ‘Methods’, ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ sections? | 2.68 | 1.09 | 3.00 | 2.31 | 0.95 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.84 | 1.07 | 3.00 | 2.38 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 0.00** | 2.33 | 0.98 | 307.49 | 2.38 | 0.98 | 314.48 | 2.73 | 1.04 | 377.85 | 2.97 | 1.22 | 409.88 | 0.00** | 0.00** 0.02* |
1–3 1–4 |
*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01
The majority of pharmacists not belonging to the “other” workplace category rated their competency to conduct research on the 5-point Likert scale as 3 or lower, whereas pharmacists in the “other” category rated their competency as 3 or higher for Q16, Q17, Q19, Q25, Q26 and Q27. These items concerned the significance of research and fundamental rules that must be followed when conducting research.
There was a significant difference in self-assessments between hospital and community pharmacists, with hospital pharmacists rating themselves higher (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.05 for all items except Q15–Q18 and Q23). There was also a significant difference between community pharmacists and those in the “other” category, with pharmacists in the “other” category rating themselves higher (Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.05 for Q20, Q27, Q29–Q32).
Self-assessment scores for men were significantly higher across all items than those for women (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05).
In most categories, pharmacists with public university degrees rated themselves higher than those with private university degrees (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05; Table 3). Q23 had a higher score for public university graduates, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between self-assessments of 2022MCC-G learning objectives and the objective variable (Q15). Q18, Q20, Q21, Q24 and Q31 were highly correlated with Q15 but had low percentages of high self-assessment ratings. The variable with the highest correlation was Q18 (“Can you draw scientific inferences?”; rs = 0.60), followed by Q31 (“Can you evaluate results creatively and from a bird’s-eye view?”; rs = 0.59).
Correlation between self-assessment of learning objectives and the objective variable (Q15 Do you have the competency to conduct research?) (n = 659). Vertical axis: Percentage of pharmacists who answered ‘competent, 4 or 5’ in their self-assessment of learning objectives (MCC’G revised in 2022). Horizontal axis: Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, the correlation with the objective variable (objective variable: Q15 Do you have the competency to conduct research?).
Studies on pharmacists’ research competencies have been reported in various countries12–14). Regarding Qatari pharmacists, although attitudes towards research were positive, there were barriers related to support and research culture, and self-assessments tended to be higher than those observed in Japan12). Our study also suggested that pharmacists have limited opportunities to sufficiently develop research competencies, and although they recognize the need for research, they may be unable to conduct research due to various barriers and a lack of experience (Step 1: Q5 and Q11; Step 2: Q15). Therefore, to promote future research, a system is needed in which universities play an active and systematic role in workplace settings, rather than addressing each case individually, as recommended in Nigeria. Such a system should be developed through collaboration among universities, healthcare institutions, and relevant professional organizations, in order to enable pharmacists to ‘conduct research in the workplace,’ as described in the FIP frameworks11), and should address financial barriers, the understanding of colleagues and supervisors, and associated educational issues.
Self-assessed research competencies were low for all learning objectives (Fig. 3). The learning objectives of 2022MCC-G form the foundation of research competencies, and further development of undergraduate education systems is urgently needed. However, it appears feasible to develop research education centered on these objectives, given their strong correlations with research competency.
Japanese pharmacy universities require students to complete “senior theses” as part of undergraduate education. However, their evaluation and implementation are determined by each university’s Diploma Policy (DP), resulting in considerable variation in achievement levels. Moreover, the “senior thesis” is not assessed in the national examination. Most importantly, Japanese pharmacy education lacks a public lifelong learning framework comparable to those in other countries11), as pharmacist licenses in Japan are permanent and not subject to renewal. Consequently, lifelong learning relies largely on individual motivation, making it difficult to cultivate competencies that were not sufficiently developed during undergraduate education. In other words, such competencies are less likely to be acquired after graduation without self-directed effort.
Although various organizations offer lifelong learning programs that pharmacists may attend voluntarily, engagement in research remains limited unless it is required in the workplace or strongly recognized as necessary by the individual. This tendency was observed not only in our findings but also in a report by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, which indicated that while the research domain is adequately covered in pharmacy degree programs (in contrast to the situation in Japan), there is wide variation in the development of ‘power skills’ necessary to support the training of researchers14). Therefore, universities should promote awareness of the importance of research education within lifelong learning programs, which may also help alleviate workplace-related barriers. From a financial perspective, some universities and organizations have begun to provide scholarships and other forms of financial support for graduate studies18,19).
Gender inequality remains a major issue in Japan compared with other countries20). Although there are no fundamental differences in job types or workplaces between men and women, factors related to childbirth and childcare may hinder women’s career development. While systems such as parental leave exist21), support for career development largely depends on individual motivation. As of 2022, Japan had 323,690 pharmacists, 38.4% of whom were men and 61.6% were women22). In Japan, research achievements often contribute to career advancement. The relatively low proportion of women in professorial positions, particularly at national and public universities, may be partly attributable to reduced research time and productivity associated with childcare and life-stage factors. Therefore, providing women with opportunities and incentives for career development may be necessary to promote research.
Existing studies have reported that public universities tend to provide stronger research education, whereas private universities place greater emphasis on preparation for national examinations23). This difference may partly explain why pharmacists who graduated from public universities rated their research competencies higher than those from private universities. In addition, these trends may be influenced by a decline in student quality following the increase in the number of pharmacy schools from 46 in 2002 to 79 in 2024, which resulted from revisions to the Standards for the Establishment of Universities24). Under these circumstances, private universities may be more likely to prioritize national examination preparation over research education, potentially contributing to declining research competency. As the number of universities increased, competition for pharmacy school applicants intensified, and the national examination pass rate—highly valued by students aspiring to become pharmacists—came to be regarded as a major indicator of university evaluation25). Meanwhile, with the transition to the six-year pharmacy program, universities were required to undergo educational evaluation by a third-party organization. In the first-cycle evaluations conducted by the Japan Accreditation Board for Pharmaceutical Education, 71 of 74 universities were identified as requiring improvement in ‘education for nurturing problem-solving ability’23). Although direct comparison with the period prior to the introduction of the six-year program is difficult, and problem-solving ability does not necessarily equate to research competency, such deficiencies were more frequently noted at private universities than at national universities, and at newly established universities than at long-established ones. These findings may therefore serve as partial support for the preceding discussion23).
Regarding differences in self-assessment between community and hospital pharmacists, a previous survey on pharmacists’ competency to provide guidance on infection prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic reported similar findings26). Hospital pharmacists likely have more opportunities to deal with serious medical conditions and to engage with patients’ complex health issues, and may therefore be more involved in efforts and research aimed at addressing these issues, which may contribute to higher self-assessment. However, further investigation is needed.
In the absence of an explicit definition of the term “research,” responses reflected pharmacists’ individual perceptions, and variability arising from differences in such perceptions was not considered. Interpretations of the survey questions may also have differed between pharmacists with and without research or manuscript-writing experience. Further studies considering research environments and individual factors are needed; nevertheless, this survey identified several key issues among pharmacists.
As of 2022, Japan had 323,690 pharmacists, of whom 190,735 worked in pharmacies, 62,463 in hospitals and 70,492 in other settings22). The present survey was conducted among a limited group of pharmacists registered with a research company and therefore may not fully represent all Japanese pharmacists. In addition, not all participants may have fully understood the purpose of the survey because participation was not purely voluntary (participants could receive points exchangeable for goods). Nonetheless, the study had a sufficiently large sample size, and a national educational standard was used for self-assessment. Further research is needed to determine whether cooperation systems between universities and workplace facilities can be developed and, if not, what barriers exist.
The survey revealed that barriers to conducting research range from gender-related issues to the structure of undergraduate education and workplace culture. It is necessary to raise awareness of these issues and discuss future strategies with universities and professional organizations. In particular, developing and sharing strategies and assessment guidelines for undergraduate education—and adding “research courses” to lifelong learning programs at each university—may be essential for strengthening pharmacists’ research competencies.
The entire role (Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing-original draft, Visualization, project administration, Funding acquisition) was carried out by Kayoko Takeda Mamiya, supported by Kazumasa Hirata for Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-original draft, project administration, Funding acquisition. Our research paper adheres to the ICMJE definition of authorship, and this article was written based on the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guideline, which is considered to be the most suitable for our research.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
There is no conflict of interest to be disclosed in relation to the contents of this paper.
