The research team, led by Manal S. Kaawsh of Applied Science Private University in Amman together with colleagues across Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, and Iraq, surveyed 300 community pharmacists between February and March 2026. Their instrument was built around the Technology Acceptance Model, or TAM, a framework developed in the late 1980s that predicts whether people will adopt a new technology based on two core beliefs: perceived usefulness, meaning the belief that the tool improves performance, and perceived ease of use, meaning the belief that operating it requires little effort. By measuring these constructs alongside behavioral intention, prior AI experience, perceived benefits, and specific concerns, the researchers could statistically model which psychological levers actually drive a pharmacist’s willingness to adopt AI in practice.

The baseline familiarity numbers are remarkable. Of the 300 pharmacists surveyed, 283, or 94.3 percent, said they were familiar with AI tools, and 222, or 74 percent, reported using them in everyday life. Yet formal education has clearly lagged behind personal experience: 185 pharmacists, or 61.7 percent, had never received any structured AI training. That gap between informal fluency and professional preparation is one of the study’s most consequential findings, because it suggests pharmacists are forming their attitudes toward clinical AI based on consumer tools like chatbots rather than validated, pharmacy-specific systems.

When asked directly about adoption, the cohort split in a way that captures the current moment in healthcare AI. Exactly 156 pharmacists, or 52 percent, said they were willing to integrate AI into medication counseling. Another 104, or 34.7 percent, were uncertain, and 40, or 13.3 percent, were unwilling. The large uncertain middle is arguably the most important group. These are practitioners who neither embrace nor reject the technology, and their eventual position will likely be determined by how well regulators, educators, and software developers address the specific concerns the survey catalogued.

Those concerns are concrete and technical. The most frequently cited was inadequate regulation, flagged by 218 pharmacists, or 72.7 percent. Close behind were doubts about AI accuracy and worries about data privacy, each raised by 205 respondents, or 68.3 percent. For medication counseling specifically, these fears are well founded. Large language models can generate plausible but incorrect drug information, a phenomenon known as hallucination, and counseling errors involving dosing, interactions, or contraindications can directly harm patients. Privacy is equally serious, since counseling often touches on sensitive diagnoses, and pharmacy systems may not meet the encryption and access-control standards that health data protection requires.

On the other side of the ledger, pharmacists saw substantial upside. Improved patient education was the top perceived benefit, named by 204 participants, or 68 percent. Drug interaction checking followed at 200 respondents, or 66.7 percent, and counseling efficiency at 197, or 65.7 percent. These benefits map neatly onto the real bottlenecks of community pharmacy. Interaction checking is a computationally intensive task where AI can cross-reference a patient’s full medication list against vast pharmacological databases in seconds. Patient education is a time-intensive task where AI-generated, language-tailored explanations could free pharmacists to focus on judgment and empathy rather than rote explanation.

To move beyond simple percentages, the team ran a logistic regression, a statistical technique that estimates how each factor independently changes the odds of a binary outcome, in this case willingness to adopt AI. The model produced a clear hierarchy of drivers. Behavioral intention emerged as the primary source of willingness, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.966, a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.212 to 3.188, and a p-value of 0.006. In practical terms, pharmacists who already intend to use AI were nearly twice as likely to be willing adopters, which is consistent with the TAM’s central claim that intention is the strongest proximal predictor of behavior.

Age also mattered, and in the expected direction. Younger pharmacists were more willing to adopt AI, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.947 per year of age, a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.915 to 0.980, and a p-value of 0.002. Because the odds ratio is below one, each additional year of age slightly reduces the odds of willingness. This generational gradient mirrors findings across digital health research and suggests that AI integration in pharmacy may follow a cohort-replacement pattern, with adoption accelerating as digitally native graduates enter the workforce. Notably, prior AI experience and perceived ease of use did not reach statistical significance in the final model, hinting that hands-on familiarity alone does not convert into professional adoption without intention and enabling conditions.

Perhaps the most reassuring qualitative signal in the data is how pharmacists framed AI’s role. The authors conclude that community pharmacists generally viewed AI as a valuable adjunct to medication counseling rather than a replacement for professional judgment. That framing matters for the future of the profession. If AI is positioned as a decision-support layer, handling information retrieval, interaction screening, and first-draft patient explanations, the pharmacist retains accountability for the final clinical encounter. This division of labor aligns with the concept of intelligence augmentation, in which machine capabilities extend rather than substitute for human expertise.

The path forward, according to the study, runs through four gates: regulation, training, data privacy, and reliability. Jordan’s findings are likely generalizable across many middle-income health systems where community pharmacies are the most accessible point of care and where AI tools arrive faster than the rules governing them. For developers, the message is that accuracy guarantees and privacy-by-design architecture are not optional features but adoption prerequisites. For pharmacy schools, the 61.7 percent training gap is a curriculum to-do list. And for regulators, the 72.7 percent who cited inadequate oversight are issuing a warning that trust, not technology, is now the limiting reagent in pharmacy’s AI future.

Subject of Research: Community pharmacists' acceptance and willingness to adopt artificial intelligence for medication counseling in Jordan

Article Title: Community pharmacists’ acceptance and willingness to adopt artificial intelligence for medication counseling: a cross-sectional study in Jordan

Article References: Kaawsh, M. S., Alzoubi, K. H., Barakat, M., Al-Ashwal, F. Y., & Abu-Farha, R. K. (2026). Community pharmacists’ acceptance and willingness to adopt artificial intelligence for medication counseling: a cross-sectional study in Jordan. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15820-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15820-4

Keywords: artificial intelligence, community pharmacists, medication counseling, Technology Acceptance Model, Jordan, pharmacy practice, behavioral intention, data privacy, AI regulation, drug interaction checking, patient education, health services research

Methadone remains one of the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder, reducing illicit opioid use, overdose risk, and mortality when taken consistently under medical supervision. Yet in the United States, access to methadone is tightly constrained by a regulatory architecture unlike that governing any other medication. Patients must typically travel daily to a specialized opioid treatment program, often called a methadone clinic, to receive their doses under observation. These clinics are concentrated in urban areas, leaving large swaths of rural America effectively unserved. The result is a treatment system in which the medication with the strongest evidence base is also the hardest to obtain, a paradox that has drawn increasing criticism from addiction medicine specialists and public health researchers alike.

One proposed solution is the pharmacy medication unit, a model in which a licensed pharmacy partners with an opioid treatment program to administer or dispense methadone at the pharmacy’s location. Under this arrangement, known formally as pharmacy administration and dispensing of methadone for opioid use disorder, the opioid treatment program retains medical responsibility for the patient while the pharmacy serves as a convenient, community-embedded point of access. Federal regulations permit such arrangements, and they have been used in other countries for decades, but the model remains rare in the United States. The Duke-led survey was designed to answer a deceptively simple question: are American pharmacists ready to take on this role?

The answer, in many respects, is cautiously encouraging. Of the 585 pharmacists surveyed, 57.2 percent expressed confidence in their ability to develop a partnership with an opioid treatment program to establish or participate in a pharmacy methadone medication unit. Meanwhile, 39.2 percent believed that most of their peers would be interested in participating in such a program, and 25.1 percent said they themselves were likely to build a partnership with an opioid treatment program to take part. These numbers suggest a meaningful reservoir of professional goodwill that could be tapped if the structural obstacles were addressed.

But the survey also exposed profound gaps in awareness and experience. Only 6.2 percent of respondents reported having ever worked at an opioid treatment program, and just 37.9 percent were aware that federal and state regulations already allow pharmacy-based methadone medication units. In other words, most pharmacists have never encountered the model, and most do not know it is even legal. That combination of unfamiliarity and regulatory opacity represents a formidable barrier, because pharmacists who do not know a practice exists are unlikely to advocate for it, pursue training in it, or negotiate the partnerships it requires.

The statistical analysis uncovered patterns in who felt most prepared. Pharmacists who were male, who identified with a racial category other than White or Asian, who practiced in the Western United States rather than the Northeast, who worked at an independent pharmacy rather than a hospital or clinic pharmacy, and who were owners, partners, or managers rather than staff pharmacists reported higher odds of feeling confident in their ability to forge a partnership with an opioid treatment program. Similar demographic patterns emerged for stated intention to participate, with male pharmacists, Asian pharmacists, and those in the other race category showing increased odds of expressing willingness to build such partnerships. The findings on practice setting and role are particularly telling: pharmacists with greater autonomy and decision-making authority, such as independent pharmacy owners, appear more inclined to embrace the model, suggesting that institutional flexibility matters as much as individual attitude.

When asked about barriers, the surveyed pharmacists were candid. Concerns about workload topped the list, reflecting the daily dosing schedule that methadone treatment typically demands and the staffing pressures already straining community pharmacies. Regulatory complexity and liability exposure also weighed heavily, as did a lack of training specific to methadone dispensing and the needs of patients with opioid use disorder. These concerns are not trivial. Methadone carries a narrow therapeutic window, and dispensing it safely requires knowledge of drug interactions, overdose risk, and the clinical protocols that opioid treatment programs follow. Pharmacists accustomed to filling prescriptions for chronic conditions would need structured education and clear practice guidelines before taking on the responsibility.

Yet the perceived benefits were equally compelling. Pharmacists pointed to improved access to treatment as the primary advantage, noting that pharmacies are often open extended hours, located in neighborhoods far from any clinic, and already trusted by the communities they serve. Expanding the number of dispensing points could reduce the daily travel burden that forces many patients to choose between holding a job and receiving their medication. Pharmacists also highlighted the potential to serve more patients overall and, notably, to reduce the stigma that many patients associate with standing in line at a methadone clinic. Receiving treatment at a neighborhood pharmacy, alongside neighbors picking up blood pressure medication or antibiotics, could normalize addiction treatment in a way that specialized clinics cannot.

The study’s authors argue that translating this latent willingness into actual practice will require coordinated action. They call for collective efforts among state pharmacy boards, pharmacist associations, and opioid treatment-related authorities to develop feasible program designs and to establish clear guidelines and training requirements for pharmacies and pharmacists wishing to participate in methadone medication units. Continuing pharmacy education could address the knowledge gap, while regulatory clarification could ease liability concerns. The survey was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and approved by the Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board, and the authors report no competing interests.

As the opioid epidemic continues to claim lives across the country, the survey offers both a warning and an invitation. The warning is that good intentions alone will not build a pharmacy-based methadone system; without training, regulatory guidance, and deliberate partnership structures, the model will remain a footnote in addiction treatment policy. The invitation is that a substantial share of the pharmacy profession is already prepared to say yes, waiting only for the systems, education, and institutional support that would allow them to do so safely. If policymakers and professional bodies respond to that readiness, the corner pharmacy could soon become one of the most important front lines in the fight against opioid overdose, bringing a proven medication to patients in the communities where they live and work rather than behind the doors of distant clinics.

Subject of Research: Pharmacist readiness for pharmacy-based methadone dispensing for opioid use disorder in the United States

Article Title: Pharmacy administration and dispensing of methadone for opioid use disorder: a survey of U.S. pharmacists

Article References: Wu, L.-T., Easter, M., Gilbert, A., Hagemeier, N., & Schwartz, R. P. (2026). Pharmacy administration and dispensing of methadone for opioid use disorder: a survey of U.S. pharmacists. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-026-00724-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s13722-026-00724-9

Keywords: methadone, opioid use disorder, pharmacists, opioid treatment program, medication unit, pharmacy practice, survey research, opioid epidemic, treatment access, harm reduction, drug policy, Duke University

The study, conducted between October 2024 and January 2025, invited 533 community pharmacists from across Saudi Arabia to complete a validated questionnaire assessing three domains: their current practices in depression care, their perceptions and attitudes, and the barriers they face. With a participation rate of 70.7 percent, the survey offers one of the more comprehensive snapshots to date of how community pharmacists in the Kingdom engage with mental health presentations. Respondents were scored on the frequency with which they performed specific depression-related activities, from screening and counseling to referral, and the researchers then used multiple linear regression to identify which pharmacist characteristics predicted stronger or weaker practice.

The headline numbers tell a story of misaligned capacity. The overall practice score came in at 51.0 percent, which the authors characterize as low, while the perception and attitude score reached 77.4 percent, indicating a moderate level of positive orientation toward depression care. In other words, pharmacists largely accept that they have a legitimate role in supporting patients with depression, whether through medication management, adherence counseling, or referral to physicians, but that acceptance rarely translates into consistent action. This attitude-practice gap is a well-recognized phenomenon in health services research, and the Saudi data add a detailed national case study of how professional beliefs can outrun institutional support.

Not all depression-related activities were equally neglected. The most commonly reported practices were encouraging patients to adhere to their antidepressant medications and checking prescription details before dispensing. These are tasks that fit naturally into the existing workflow of a community pharmacy and require little additional infrastructure. By contrast, less frequent activities included consulting with physicians about patient care and providing written educational materials about depression. The pattern is telling: pharmacists are comfortable performing the mechanical elements of pharmaceutical care, but the communicative and collaborative components, those that require time, privacy, and established referral relationships, lag behind. It is precisely these latter activities that international guidelines on collaborative mental health care tend to emphasize.

The barriers pharmacists reported form a coherent picture of a system not yet designed for mental health work at the community level. The most significant obstacles included limited access to patient medical profiles, which prevents pharmacists from seeing the full clinical picture behind a prescription; poor patient understanding of depression, which complicates counseling; a lack of privacy in pharmacies, where counseling about a psychiatric condition can be overheard by other customers; time constraints in busy dispensing environments; and inadequate mental health training. Each of these barriers maps onto a specific fix: integrated health records, public education, redesigned pharmacy spaces, realistic workload expectations, and targeted professional development. The authors argue that addressing these structural issues, rather than simply exhorting pharmacists to do more, is the key to unlocking the profession’s contribution.

The regression analysis added statistical texture to these findings. The overall model was significant, explaining roughly 22 percent of the variance in practice scores, and several demographic and workload factors emerged as meaningful predictors. Greater professional experience was associated with higher practice scores, suggesting that depression care skills accumulate over a career, perhaps through repeated patient encounters and informal learning. Interestingly, pharmacists aged 30 to 39 years scored lower than those aged 20 to 29, a counterintuitive result that may reflect the compounded pressures of mid-career workloads and family responsibilities, though the study design cannot establish causation. Dispensing between 50 and 100 prescriptions daily was associated with higher practice scores, possibly because this moderate workload level provides enough patient contact to practice depression-related activities without the paralyzing time pressure of very high volumes.

One of the most consequential negative findings concerned training. Depression-specific training was not significantly associated with higher practice scores in the regression model, with the coefficient falling just short of conventional statistical significance. This result deserves careful interpretation. It may indicate that existing training programs are not sufficiently practical or competency-based to change behavior, that trained pharmacists still face the same structural barriers that nullify their additional skills, or that the self-reported nature of training exposure obscures real differences in training quality. The authors conclude that competency-based training, explicitly designed to overcome the barriers pharmacists face, is needed rather than generic mental health education alone.

The significance of this research extends beyond Saudi Arabia. Depression is a major and growing public health burden worldwide, and health systems everywhere struggle to provide timely access to mental health services. Community pharmacists occupy a unique position in the response: they are geographically distributed, do not require appointments, are visited repeatedly by patients with chronic conditions, and are often the healthcare professional a person sees most frequently. International health policy frameworks have increasingly called for pharmacists to take on expanded roles in mental health, including medication reconciliation, adherence support, recognition of worsening symptoms, and structured referral. The Saudi study provides a template for measuring how far real-world pharmacy practice sits from that aspiration, and its methods could be replicated in other countries facing similar gaps.

What would it take to close the gap the study documents? The authors outline a reform agenda built on five pillars: competency-based training programs that emphasize practical skills over theoretical knowledge; better access to patient medical profiles through integrated digital health records, aligning with Saudi Arabia’s broader health digitization agenda under Vision 2030; private counseling spaces within or adjacent to pharmacies; clearly defined referral pathways that connect pharmacists to primary care physicians and mental health specialists; and stronger interprofessional collaboration, so that a pharmacist’s concern about a patient reaches a physician quickly and reliably. None of these interventions is technologically exotic, and several are already underway in other health systems that have formalized pharmacist roles in collaborative care models for depression.

The study also carries a message for patients and the public. Poor patient understanding of depression ranked among the top barriers reported by pharmacists, which means the problem is bidirectional: pharmacists cannot counsel effectively if patients do not recognize depression as a treatable medical condition or feel able to discuss it. Reducing mental health stigma and improving mental health literacy in the general population would directly amplify the effectiveness of any pharmacy-based intervention. As health systems worldwide search for scalable ways to ease the burden of depression, this Saudi survey offers a sober but hopeful conclusion: the workforce is willing, the attitudes are broadly supportive, and what stands between intention and impact is a set of fixable structural problems, from missing medical records to missing private corners in which a difficult conversation can finally take place.

Subject of Research: Community pharmacists' role and barriers in depression care in Saudi Arabia

Article Title: Community pharmacists’ practices, perceptions, and barriers in depression care: a cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia

Article References: Alzahrani, F., Aljohani, M., Alhusini, L. M., Alluhibi, H., Aljohani, L. S., Al Thaqfan, S. S., Fallatah, S. B., Alzahrani, S., & Alnezary, F. S. (2026). Community pharmacists’ practices, perceptions, and barriers in depression care: a cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15551-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15551-6

Keywords: depression, community pharmacists, Saudi Arabia, mental health, pharmacy practice, cross-sectional study, barriers, antidepressant adherence, referral pathways, interprofessional collaboration, health services research, pharmacist training