At the point of medicine dispensing, consumers in South Africa are charged a dispensing fee for medicines bought in the private sector. However, almost two decades later, uncertainty about the dispensing fee persists, and few studies assess community pharmacists’ perceptions of the fee structure. A cross-sectional study was conducted between 5 December 2025 and 28 February 2026 using a validated self-administered survey. The study targeted independent community pharmacy owners and pharmacists. Data analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software, version 30. A total of 146 respondents completed the survey, out of the required 226. There was overall disagreement (76%) that the dispensing fee structure was fair compensation for pharmacists’ services and that it reflected pharmacy operational costs (87.1%), with 50.4% of respondents reporting that medical aid schemes do not remunerate in accordance with the government’s four-tiered dispensing fee. The findings revealed no significant differences between perceptions of the current (2024) and proposed (2025) fees. The survey findings, based on participant responses, suggest that the current dispensing fee structure may be misaligned with actual operational costs. Geographic inequity, the dispensing volume assumptions underpinning the model’s design, and medical aid non-compliance may be among the structural factors shaping these perceptions.
The increasing integration of digital technologies into pharmacy education has transformed how students learn, communicate, and develop professional competencies. However, prolonged engagement with digital platforms may contribute to digital fatigue, technostress, cognitive overload, sleep disruption, and reduced well-being. Although digital fatigue has primarily been considered a learner wellness concern, its potential implications may extend to workforce readiness and medication safety. Cognitive functions affected by fatigue and information overload, including attention, vigilance, working memory, information synthesis, and clinical judgment, are also essential for safe medication use and effective pharmacy practice. This commentary applies a systems and human factors perspective to examine digital fatigue as an emerging consideration in pharmacy education and workforce development. Using principles aligned with the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework, we highlight potential pathways through which digitally intensive learning environments may influence cognitive performance and preparedness for technology-enabled pharmacy practice. Systems-based strategies are proposed, including intentional digital curriculum design, digital well-being and resilience training, human-centered technology design, sleep and fatigue prevention, and simulation focused on cognitive load management. As pharmacy education continues to evolve alongside technological innovation, greater attention to digital well-being may help prepare pharmacists to practice safely, effectively, and sustainably within increasingly technology-intensive healthcare environments.
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into educational environments is accelerating, with growing interest in its potential to enhance learning outcomes. This pilot study aimed to assess student perceptions regarding the quality and educational impact of AI-generated feedback. Methods: Second-professional-year pharmacy students (n = 148) enrolled in a drug literature evaluation course received AI-generated feedback for a draft assignment which required students to critically evaluate a recently published journal article. Feedback was generated by an AI assistant that offered iterative feedback based on the assignment rubric. After the activity, students completed an electronic survey instrument evaluating the AI feedback regarding its alignment with rubric criteria, accuracy, clarity, and tone. Student perceptions of the feedback’s impact on learning were also assessed. Results: A total of 148 students (100%) completed the activity and responded to at least one item of the survey tool. Most students agreed with the AI-generated feedback for each section of the assignment in regard to clarity (61.5% to 76.2%) and tone (66.9% to 74.3%), with lower agreement related to alignment with the rubric (33.8% to 60.4%) and accuracy (34.5% to 54.2%). Students also expressed concern about the reliability of AI feedback (71.2%) and risk for plagiarism (50%). Conclusions: AI-generated feedback was positively received in some areas. However, students expressed apprehension regarding its accuracy, reliability, and potential accusation of plagiarism. These findings suggest further refinement is necessary to enhance AI trustworthiness and educational value in academic settings.
Traditional herbal preparations are frequently used alongside prescription and non-prescription medicines, yet conventional medication reconciliation may not preserve the preparation details needed to interpret interaction and safety evidence. We propose the community-contextualized translational ethnopharmacy framework (CTEF) as a testable conceptual architecture for pharmacy practice. Developed through a problem-oriented conceptual synthesis and a targeted, non-systematic comparator mapping, CTEF treats the exact reported preparation as the clinical exposure and embeds it within a review of the patient’s complete medication and clinical context. The revised framework is iterative and comprises five functions: exposure characterization; comprehensive medication and clinical reconciliation; appraisal of the evidence profile and transferability to the reported preparation; consequence-sensitive action selection using patient vulnerability and explicit escalation/de-escalation rules; and culturally responsive communication, documentation, and follow-up. The central hypothesis is that, compared with a prespecified standard medication-reconciliation workflow, CTEF will improve exposure-characterization completeness, inter-rater reproducibility, and concordance with blinded external adjudication without unacceptable increases in consultation burden, unnecessary escalation, or patient-reported communication harm. CTEF is not a scale, treatment guideline, or validated clinical decision rule. Staged co-design, simulation, reliability, feasibility, comparative, and cross-cultural studies are required before clinical adoption.
Background/Objectives: Telepharmacy refers to the use of telecommunication and digital technologies to provide pharmacy services remotely. Early telepharmacy models were implemented in the early 2000s to extend pharmaceutical care to patients in remote and underserved areas. Evaluating pharmacists’ attitudes, awareness, and perceptions of telepharmacy services is essential to inform policy, training, and implementation guidelines. This review summarizes studies on pharmacists’ attitudes, awareness, or perceptions of telepharmacy services. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify qualitative and descriptive quantitative studies that reported on the attitudes, awareness, or perceptions of pharmacists toward the practice of telepharmacy services from January 2000 through April 2026. Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis PRISMA guidelines. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 13 cross-sectional quantitative studies and 5 qualitative studies across 11 countries. Overall, the included studies reported generally favorable attitudes and perceptions toward telepharmacy, although awareness varied across studies and settings. Pharmacists perceived telepharmacy as beneficial for healthcare accessibility, patient counseling, medication management, and continuity of care. Reported barriers included inadequate technological infrastructure, insufficient training, increased workload, reimbursement concerns, and absence of standardized regulations or practice guidelines. Common facilitators included professional education and training, institutional support, interprofessional collaboration, improved technological infrastructure, and clear telepharmacy guidelines. Conclusions: Pharmacists generally reported favorable attitudes and perceptions toward telepharmacy, although awareness and experiences varied across healthcare settings and countries. Addressing technological, educational, organizational, financial, and regulatory barriers may support effective and sustainable integration of telepharmacy into pharmacy practice.
