A qualitative exploration of mental health services provided in community pharmacies.

The burden of mental health problems continues to grow worldwide. Community pharmacists', as part of the primary care team, optimise care for people living with mental illness. This study aims to examine the factors that support or hinder the delivery of mental health services delivered in Australian community pharmacies and proposes ideas for improvement. A qualitative study was conducted comprising focus groups with community pharmacists and pharmacy staff across metropolitan, regional, and rural areas of New South Wales, Australia. Data were collected in eight focus groups between December 2020 and June 2021. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three community pharmacists and pharmacy staff participated in an initial round of focus groups. Eleven community pharmacists and pharmacy staff participated in a second round of focus groups. Twenty-four factors that enable or hinder the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacy were identified. Participant's perception of a lack of recognition and integration of community pharmacy within primary care were identified as major barriers, in addition to consumers' stigma and lack of awareness regarding service offering. Suggestions for improvement to mental health care delivery in community pharmacy included standardised practice through the use of protocols, remuneration and public awareness. A framework detailing the factors moderating pharmacists, pharmacy staff and consumers' empowerment in mental health care delivery in community pharmacy is proposed. This study has highlighted that policy and funding support for mental health services is needed that complement and expand integrated models, promote access to services led by or are conducted in collaboration with pharmacists and recognise the professional contribution and competencies of community pharmacists in mental health care. The framework proposed may be a step to strengthening mental health support delivered in community pharmacies.

Introduction

The burden of mental health problems continues to grow worldwide with a 13% rise in mental health conditions and substance use disorders in the last decade [1]. In Australia, mental illness is widespread and has substantial impact at the personal, social and economic levels [2]. Four million Australians had a mental or behavioural condition between 2014 and 2015, a figure which increased to 4.8 million in 2017 [3]. It is predicted that almost half of the Australian population will suffer from a mental health problem at some stage in their lifetime [4]. Due to geographic and social isolation, people living in remote and rural areas in Australia have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing, evidenced by the significantly higher suicide rates compared to metropolitan areas [5, 6]. Importantly, 4.3 million people were supplied with mental health-related medicine in Australia in 2018–2019 [7]. In 2019–2020, $1.4 billion was spent by the Australian Government on benefits for Medicare-subsidised mental health-specific services and $566 million on subsidised mental health-related prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [8].

Primary health care teams are playing a crucial role in the detection, management, and provision of long-term support to people living with a mental illness [9, 10]. The integration of community pharmacists as part of these teams has been supported and encouraged by government agencies and international institutions [11]. In Australia, community pharmacists are often the most accessible healthcare providers with a network of approximately 5,822 pharmacies [12]. Their accessibility has been evident throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as community pharmacies have remained open providing essential services and access to medicines and health care. This is particularly important in regional and rural communities where timely access to other healthcare professionals and services may be limited. Specifically in 2004, the WHO recognised the importance of as community pharmacists as part of multidisciplinary teams [13] to optimise care for people living with mental illness, and their families [14]. Community pharmacists’ role in mental health includes, but is not limited to, the provision of information about conditions and psychotropic drugs, optimising treatment outcomes and quality use of medicines, medication adherence support, screening and early identification, provision of resources, referral to general practice or other services (e.g., hospital emergency services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities) [15]. There is increasing evidence of the positive impact of pharmacists-led interventions have on adherence [16, 17], depression screening [18-21] and medication reviews for community-based mental healthcare consumers [22]. Nevertheless, the research in this area is limited and further studies demonstrating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacists-led interventions in mental health is needed.

In recent years, key pharmacy bodies worldwide have published reports and frameworks highlighting pharmacists’ potential roles in mental healthcare. For example, the International Pharmaceutical Federation published a report showing how pharmacists and pharmaceutical organisations positively influence mental health care [23]. The National Health Service (NHS) of England also developed a framework of core mental health competencies for pharmacists [24]. A report published by the United Kingdom’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society [25] and a framework by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia [26] articulate the role of community pharmacists as partners in multidisciplinary teams to support people with mental health problems. These reports also highlighted the barriers to pharmacists becoming partners in mental health care, such as lack of integration, recognition, time and confidence, which aligns with the available literature focused on other professional pharmacy services [27, 28]. However, there is a lack of research focused on pharmacists’ perspectives and experiences regarding mental health service delivery in community pharmacies. Considering the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in mental health service provision is essential to understand and identify factors moderating (i.e., facilitating or hindering) the provision of services within a specific setting [29]. Thus, the present study aims to examine the factors that support delivery of mental health services in Australian community pharmacies in New South Wales (NSW) and proposes ideas for improvement, particularly in regional and rural regions.

Materials and methods

A qualitative study was conducted. Data were collected in two rounds of focus groups conducted virtually via Zoom. A total of eight focus groups were conducted between December of 2020 and June of 2021 (Fig 1). The reporting standards recommended by the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guided the research [30].

Fig 1

Study methodology.

Round One: Initial data collection

The aim of Round One was to derive information regarding the experiences and perspectives of community pharmacists and pharmacy staff regarding the delivery of mental health services in Australian community pharmacies in NSW. Round One consisted of six focus groups divided between December of 2020 and January of 2021.

Participants’ selection and recruitment

Participants were recruited using purposive sampling. The following inclusion criteria were applied:

Community pharmacists (pharmacy owners and employees) and pharmacy staff;

working in any type of community pharmacies (e.g., chain, independent, banner);

located in metropolitan, regional and rural areas of NSW.

Ten participants were recruited per group to account for potential non-attendance as recommended in the published literature [31]. Contact details of potential participants were obtained from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia’s NSW Branch project team and also via publicly available lists. Potential participants were initially contacted by telephone and email by the research team. In addition, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia’s NSW Branch project team assisted with contacting eligible participants to participate in the study. Individual pharmacists and pharmacy staff expressing interest in participating were provided with a participant information sheet (PIS) and consent form via email. Demographic data from focus group participants were collected through an online questionnaire developed by the research team. A link to complete the questionnaire was included in the email sent to participants.

Data collection

The focus groups were facilitated by two researchers (JR, SDG). An additional researcher was an observer in the group discussion (CCG). A focus group guide (Fig 1) was developed prior to the commencement of the study which was based on previous literature. Data collection was conducted using two different techniques. In December of 2020, data were collected using a combination of the Nominal Group Technique and open discussion questions. In January of 2021, data were collected using open discussion questions.

December 2020. Four focus group were conducted. Each focus group meeting was divided into two stages:

:

The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was applied to explore community pharmacists and pharmacy staff experiences and perspectives [32]. The NGT process is a highly structured face-to-face small group discussion which involves problem solving and generation of ideas which empowers participants by providing an opportunity to have their opinions heard and considered by other participants [33]. The NGT process allows participants to identify issues which require more in-depth exploration and ideas that may not be previously considered by participants [31]. This method was considered appropriate as it limits the influence of the researchers on group participants, enables equal contribution of all group members, allows to generate larger groups of ideas and reach group consensus based on the sum of individual points [34]. It is a time-efficient approach due to its directed process and it produces tangible results [35].

At the commencement of the focus group, one facilitator (JR) described the NGT process to participants who had the opportunity to ask questions. Two nominal questions were asked to participants to explore factors (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of mental health service delivery in community pharmacies (Fig 1).

For each question, the following process was followed [36, 37]:

Silent generation of ideas (brainstorming): The facilitator introduced the question and participants were given time to consider the question and write down their ideas.

Round-robin recording of ideas: Participants were asked to contribute an idea to the discussion. The facilitator (JR) called upon all the participants until all ideas were recorded. Ideas were documented by the other facilitator (SDG) and visible to participants throughout this process.

Discussion of ideas: Participants discussed each idea on the list to clarify its meaning. Similar ideas were combined.

Voting: Once all ideas were obtained, the facilitator (JR) asked participants to vote individually for one-third of the total number of ideas generated. Each participant was asked to vote for the ideas that they believed were most important. The sum of votes was recorded.

:

To further explore participants’ confidence, relationship with other healthcare professionals and strategies for improvement. The list of questions can be found in Fig 1.

January 2021. The remaining two focus groups were conducted as an open discussion to obtain further insights of the information retrieved in the previous focus groups. The facilitator (JR) posed several questions regarding their role as mental health providers in order to extend the knowledge that arose from focus groups 1–4 (Fig 1).

The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed in Zoom. Transcripts were de-identified to ensure privacy and confidentiality and managed in NVivo 12 (QSR International).

Data analysis

Thematic analysis of the six focus groups in Round One was conducted by two researchers (JR, CCG) and discussed with the research team (RAH, SDG) to justify participants’ ideas obtained during the NGT process and identify additional information resulting from the open discussions [38]. Analysis follows five key stages which included (i) familiarization and initial data coding, (ii) generation of initial codes, (iii) searching for themes, (iv) reviewing themes, and (v) defining themes [39]. All audiotaped files were listened to in order to test the precision of the transcript. A researcher (CCG) read and openly coded the transcripts. The initial codes were reviewed by another researcher (JR) and updated after a discussion between the researchers. Following initial coding, themes were generated to create the whole data image, including the relationships between the themes. The final themes were discussed and approved by the research team. An initial framework was developed following the analysis which depicted the factors that enable or hinder (barriers and facilitators) mental health service delivery in community pharmacy.

Round Two: Validation of findings

The aim of the second round of focus groups was to validate the findings obtained in Round One and to discuss an initial framework developed following the analysis of data. Two additional focus groups were conducted via Zoom in June of 2021.

Participants who participated in Round One of focus groups were re-contacted via email to attend the second round of focus groups. Participants received a new PIS and consent form via email. The goal was to recruit between 4 and up to 10 participants per focus group.

The focus groups were facilitated by three researchers (JR, SDG, CCG). A focus group guide (Fig 1) and a Framework (Fig 2) were developed based on the results of Round One. Participants were first prompted with a statement and a question for discussion (Fig 1).

Fig 2

Framework presented to participants for validation in follow-up focus groups.

Following the discussion, the framework (Fig 2) was presented to the participants as part of the PowerPoint presentation. Several questions related to the framework were asked to participants (Fig 1).

A thematic analysis was conducted following the same process as described in Round One.

Ethics consent and permission

The Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study (HREC number: H20326). All participants provided written consent and received a $50 gift card (per focus group) for their participation.

Results

Participants’ characteristics

A total of 40 participants were recruited in Round One. Seven participants dropped out prior to the commencement of the focus groups due to work commitments. The final 33 participants were allocated according to their role in the community pharmacy (i.e., pharmacists or pharmacy staff); the location of the pharmacy (i.e., urban, regional, rural or remote areas) and their certification status (i.e., trained in Mental Health First Aid or not trained) into six groups (Table 1). Most participants were female and the mean age of participants across all groups was 32 years (SD 9.5).

Table 1

Participants in each focus group.

Group		Number of participants
A	Community pharmacists located in urban areas, non-trained* (CPUn)	7
B	Pharmacy staff located in urban areas, non-trained* (PSUn)	4
C	Community pharmacists located in regional/rural areas, non-trained* (CPRn)	7
D	Pharmacy staff located in regional/rural areas, non-trained* (PSRn)	5
E	Community pharmacists located in urban areas, trained (CPUt)	5
F	Community pharmacists located in regional/rural, trained (CPRt)	5

*Community pharmacists and pharmacy staff who were not Mental Health First Aidª (MHFA) certified at the time of the focus group.

ªMental Health First Aid: early-intervention courses that increase mental health literacy and teach the practical skills needed to support someone experiencing a mental health problem, experiencing a worsening of an existing mental health problem or in a mental health crisis until appropriate professional help is received or the crisis resolves [40].

Participant demographics are provided in Table 2. The average duration of the first six focus groups was 89 minutes (SD 7.7).

Table 2

Participants’ demographics (Rounds One and Two).

Characteristics	Round One			Round Two
	All participants n (%)	Community pharmacists n (%)	Pharmacy staff n (%)	All participants n (%)	Community pharmacists n (%)	Pharmacy staff n (%)
Total	33 (100)	24 (72.7)	9 (27.3)	11 (100)	9 (72.7)	2 (18.2)
Country of birth	Round One			Round Two
Australia	27 (81.8)	21 (63.6)	6 (18.1)	7 (63.6)	6 (54.5)	1 (9.1)
Other (e.g., China, England)	6 (18.2)	3 (9.1)	3 (9.1)	4 (36.4)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)
Gender	Round One			Round Two
Female	30 (90.9)	22 (66.6)	8 (24.2)	11 (100)	8 (72.7)	3 (27.3)
Male	3 (9.1)	2 (6.1)	1 (3.0)	0	0	0
Age (years)	Round One			Round Two
18–24	7 (21.2)	2 (6.1)	5 (15.2)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)	2 (18.2)
25–34	19 (57.5)	17 (55.5)	2 (6.1)	6 (54.5)	6 (54.4)	0
35–44	4 (12.1)	3 (9.1)	1 (3.0)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	0
45–54	1 (3.0)	0	1 (3.0)	0	0	0
55–64	1 (3.0)	1 (3.0)	0	0	0	0
65–74	1 (3.0)	1 (3.0)	0	1 (9.1)	1 (3.0)	0
Employment	Round One			Round Two
Full-time	21 (63.6)	17 (51.5)	4 (12.1)	4 (36.4)	4 (36.4)	0
Part-time	6 (18.2)	1 (3.0)	5 (15.2)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)	2 (18.2)
Casual	4 (12.1)	3 (9.1)	1 (3.0)	3 (27.3)	3 (27.3)	0
Not working (i.e., studying or maternity leave)	2 (6.1)	1 (3.0)	1 (3.0)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	0
Highest level of education	Round One			Round Two
Year 12 or equivalent	6 (18.2)	0	6 (18.2)	1 (9.1)	0	1 (9.1)
Bachelor’s degree	7 (21.2)	4 (12.1)	3 (9.1)	3 (27.3)	2 (18.2)	1 (9.1)
Graduate diploma/ certificate	8 (24.2)	8 (24.2)	0	2 (18.2)	2 (18.2)	0
Postgraduate degree	12 (36.4)	12 (36.4)	0	5 (45.5)	5 (45.5)	0
Pharmacy location	Round One			Round Two
Urban	16 (48.5)	13 (39.4)	3 (9.1)	7 (63.6)	6 (54.5)	1 (9.1)
Regional, rural or remote	17 (55.5)	11 (33.3)	6 (18.2)	4 (36.4)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)
Type of community pharmacy	Round One			Round Two
Independent	15 (45.5)	13 (39.4)	2 (6.1)	7 (63.6)	6 (54.5)	1 (9.1)
Banner Group*	13 (39.4)	7 (21.2)	6 (18.2)	2 (18.2)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)
Discount Chain	4 (12.1)	1 (3.0)	3 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	0
Hospital pharmacy	1 (3.0)	1 (3.0)	0	1 (9.1)	1 (9.1)	0
Number of employees working on an average shift in the community pharmacy	Round One			Round Two
2 or less	0			0
3–5	10 (30.3)			5 (45.5)
6–8	7 (21.2)			2 (18.2)
9–11	10 (30.3)			1 (9.1)
11 or 13	3 (9.1)			0
14 or more	5 (15.2)			3 (27.3)

*Banner group: pharmacies that act as a franchise for marketing, management and purchasing purposes.

Nominal group voting

From the first four focus groups of Round One, twenty-four factors that enable or hinder mental health service delivery in community pharmacy were identified using the Nominal Group Technique (Tables 3 and 4). The most frequent items identified as facilitators were pharmacists’ accessibility, multidisciplinary collaboration, rapport with other healthcare professionals, pharmacists’ skills (i.e., knowledge, soft skills and communication skills) and pharmacists’ ability to perceive changes of consumers’ mental health over time given their frequency of contact. The most common barriers identified were pharmacists’ limited time to provide quality mental health services, mental health consumers’ stigma and lack of support from employers for the provision of mental health services given the focus on the delivery of remunerated services.

Table 3

Factors identified as facilitators of mental health service delivery in community pharmacy.

Factor	Number of groups where this facilitator was identified (n = 4)	Number and (%) of participants voting on this facilitator (n = 33)	Participants located in urban or regional/remote areas.
Accessibility (e.g., first port of call, timeliness of service at no cost, no waiting times)	3	16 (48.5)	All
Having good rapport with local general practitioners (GPs), multidisciplinary collaboration, and integration within referral pathways	3	14 (42.4)	All
Pharmacists’ skills (specialist nature of the pharmacist), knowledge, soft and communication skills (i.e., verbal and non-verbal)	3	13 (39.4)	All
Ability to track perceived change of consumers mental health over time (i.e., recognise deterioration or improvements) and frequency of contacts (i.e., monthly at pharmacy), reinforcement following interactions with specialist physicians, and GPs	3	9 (27.3)	All
Less formal/ less clinical setting—reducing stigma/ confrontation for people living with a mental health condition	3	8 (24.2)	All
Pharmacy physical layout—is it an appropriate space to discuss mental health?	3	2 (6.0)	All
Rapport, trust and consistency in community pharmacist-consumer relationship (compared with other primary care providers)	2	8 (24.2)	Regional/Rural
Employees and pharmacists—ability to ensure best services are provided, priority and referral (connecting people with appropriate services)	2	8 (24.2)	All
Approachability of staff (and mix of staff i.e., different cultures, gender), consumer feels comfortable to have these discussions	2	4 (12.2)	All
Opportunity to engage and follow up a person every time community pharmacists dispense a medication for mental health (i.e., monthly, or for opioid treatment program consumers (daily/ weekly)	2	3 (9.1)	Urban
Time—more pharmacists on duty to deliver professional services	2	3 (9.1)	All
Knowledge and understanding of other/ network mental health services in local area/ referral patterns	2	2 (6.0)	All
Other services—such as home medicines delivery, can check on mental health consumer	2	0	All
Staff training available to pharmacists/ staff	1	4 (12.2)	Urban
Up-to-date knowledge and education for pharmacists and staff (i.e., clinical knowledge)	1	3 (9.1)	Urban
Pharmacists’ ability to acknowledge and respect boundaries between themselves and consumers	1	2 (6.0)	Urban
Healthy workplace culture (i.e., for pharmacists and staff)	1	1 (3.0)	Urban
Promoting role of pharmacist in mental health	1	1 (3.0)	Urban
Scope of practice—knowing staff/ pharmacist limitations when managing/ helping a person living with a mental illness	1	1 (3.0)	Urban
Implementing a system to document consumer interactions	1	0	Urban
Consumer resources (leaflets, phone numbers, direct referrals)	1	0	Urban
Willingness of pharmacists to use technology and adapt	1	0	Urban
Using dispense techs and pharmacy assistants during process (i.e., flagging during dispensing such as change in medicine)	1	0	Urban
Referral made by pharmacist to GP through use of technology (i.e., MedAdvisor-extra service)	1	0	Regional/Rural
Staff safety	1	0	Urban

Table 4

Factors identified as barriers for the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacy.

Factor	Number of groups where this barrier was identified (n = 4)	Number and % of participants voting on this barrier (n = 33)	Participants located in urban or regional/remote areas.
Time for pharmacists and pharmacy staff to communicate effectively	4	15 (45.5)	All
Stigma of consumers around having mental health problem	4	14 (42.4)	All
Pharmacists support from employers	3	13 (39.4)	All
Lack of training/ experience to address stigma/ communication skills to have the confidence to have harder conversations	3	5 (15.2)	All
Limited mental health services available	3	5 (15.2)	All
Privacy issues	3	3 (9.1)	All
Remuneration—inconsistent services provided across pharmacies given the lack of remuneration associated with the service/ lack of quality indicators	2	9 (27.3)	All
Confidence of the pharmacist to deliver the mental health service (high risk/complex cases)	2	7 (21.2)	Regional/Rural
Standardised process to practice and processes to clinically document interactions with consumers, in same system other health providers operate	2	6 (18.2)	All
Pharmacists’ and pharmacy staff receptiveness and beliefs (pharmacists may not want to advance in this area of practice)	2	4 (12.2)	All
Gaps in continuity of care between multiple health providers, especially in rural or remote areas	2	3 (9.1)	Regional/Rural
Promotion of role of pharmacist (i.e., consumers and other health care providers unaware of what services can be offered in community pharmacy)	2	2 (6.0)	All
Language and cultural barriers (special populations)	2	1 (3.0)	All
Physical layout	2	0	All
Scope of practice (pharmacists first port of call/ initial contact) and knowing where we fit in to broader care process	2	0	All
Pharmacists forgotten in primary care pathways/ no direct access to referral pathways	1	6 (18.2)	Urban
Quality of service consistency because of pharmacy support available/ acknowledged tension from employers regarding priorities	1	5 (15.2)	Urban
Low consumer health literacy (i.e., their understanding of their condition, medicines and other areas of management)	1	4 (12.2)	Urban
Lack of free support/ free training for pharmacy staff	1	3 (9.1)	Regional/Rural
Mental toll it takes on pharmacy staff following interactions with people living with a mental health condition	1	3 (9.1)	Regional/Rural
Consumers tired of repeating their information to multiple health providers, availability of information across the network	1	2 (6.0)	Regional/Rural
Financial barriers, consumer out-of-pocket costs	1	2 (6.0)	Urban
Consumers’ willingness to change behaviour and perceived severity of their condition	1	1 (3.0)	Urban
Staff safety	1	1 (3.0)	Urban
Consumers’ trust	1	0	Urban
Consumers’ time	1	0	Regional/Rural
Setting/ location of pharmacy	1	0	Regional/Rural
Physical accessibility of the pharmacy (e.g., consumers with disability)	1	0	Regional/Rural

Rapport with consumers in regional and rural areas was identified as one of the most critical enablers of mental health service delivery in community pharmacy. Education and training were considered essential by community pharmacists in urban areas. Pharmacists’ lack of confidence to provide these services was frequently identified as a barrier to mental health service delivery by rural pharmacists and pharmacy staff. Community pharmacists in urban areas highlighted the lack of recognition and integration of community pharmacists in primary care referral pathways.

Thematic analysis

The referral pathways used by community pharmacists and pharmacy staff in urban and regional/rural areas have been identified through the thematic analysis and the data obtained in the six-focus groups of Round One. Strategies for improvement for mental health training of community pharmacists have been gathered, and a framework to guide pharmacists’ and consumers’ empowerment for the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacy has been proposed.

Referral pathways used by community pharmacists in urban, regional and rural areas. Most participants described general practitioners (GPs) as the primary point of referral for consumers with a mental health condition.

CPRt1: “The first point of referral is definitely the GP.”

CPUt1: “The best contact that I’ve had in my community pharmacy career is just with GPs.”

Participants also declared that when more severe cases were detected, they referred consumers to a mental health specialist.

CPUt6: “If someone’s had a crisis and is very suicidal, basically all you can do is call the ambulance to get them to the hospital in a crisis.”

CPRt3: “In Orange, there’s a mental health facility…they will also have psychiatrists down there as well, so the mental health nurses will try and fit them in down there if they need to be seen”.

In cases in which consumers were identified to be dealing with milder mental illness, participants reported that they provided information to their consumers about the availability of free resources and other services, such as helplines.

CPMn1: “If it’s mild mental illness…you can refer the consumer to online services.”

CPRt2: “[Referral to] online services and cognitive behaviour therapy services…we use a lot of because… psychiatrists and psychologists…there’s a huge waitlist for most of them.”

CPUn1: “Making aware to them [consumers] the options that are available over the phone or on the internet, things like that that are more anonymous.”

Strategies for improvement. Most participants in both metropolitan and regional/rural groups commented on the necessity of including additional training more focused on pharmacy-specific real-life scenarios, multidisciplinary learnings and pharmacists’ soft skills (e.g., emotional intelligence, empathy, verbal a non-verbal communication).

PSRn3: "With the company that I’m with, they do actually provide module training which has been helpful, but I don’t really think it touches on as much as you need to feel confident."

CPUt6: "Particularly with mental health first aid, there were no pharmacy specific scenarios, and pharmacy is a very unique environment to be applying these."

CPUt5: "I think you first need some examples of real-world scenarios…and the opportunity to actually attempt to apply it [in practice]…have someone to help you talk through what happened, what went wrong, what worked, what didn’t."

Participants in both metropolitan and regional/rural groups indicated their willingness to receive mental health training (i.e., those who had not previously undertaken the Mental Health First Aid course). Those who had previously undertaken Mental Health First Aid training suggested a refresher course to be completed every two to three years. Some participants highlighted the need to standardise pharmacist mental health service delivery through guides and standard documentation for consistency in practice.

CPRn2: "The key is consistency, just making something uniform… like we have our S3 [Schedule 3] protocols…should we have a mental health protocol to address the situation and highlight red flags that need immediate referral…that could be a way forward to help with consistency."

CPUn4: "If you’re able to standardise practice and the service that you’re providing…I suppose processes that you’re able to quantify…you’re able to understand how much time is required and therefore how much cost is associated."

Community pharmacists located in urban areas identified the need to improve government recognition of the role of community pharmacists in mental health in order to enhance the integration of community pharmacy in primary care.

CPUn1: "Better understanding of other primary care services already provided in the community because…you understand where the need is, and you’ll be able to see what you can fit in your practice."

CPUt5: "We need increased recognition if a pharmacist is going to be an active part in mental health screening or planning. We need differentiation and it shouldn’t be something that’s readily available."

Community pharmacists and pharmacy staff in rural and regional areas expressed the need to promote pharmacists’ roles (e.g., signage, advertising) and the mental health services pharmacies offer.

CPUn5: "On radio…you know, let local people know they have someone to talk about their mental health and they can go see a pharmacist…this is what a pharmacist can do."

CPRn4: "Try and raise consumer awareness of how accessible we [pharmacists] are. The [Pharmacy] Guild did it a couple of years ago with the ‘Ask your pharmacist’ campaign, but if that could actually be a bit more with a mental health perspective? Maybe the public don’t think of us as somebody who can help if they’re having mental health issues".

Participants in all groups highlighted the necessity of funding to facilitate pharmacists’ provision of mental health services to their community. The possibility of including a remunerated medication review focused on mental health was also suggested.

CPUn6: "I think one of the big things is funding. We need some way to get paid for our service as a pharmacist…to be able to claim an appointment fee…to spend even 10 minutes with a consumer in the room."

Initial proposed framework for pharmacist, pharmacy staff and consumer empowerment in mental health. Thematic analysis of the data obtained in the six focus groups of Round-One to further explore factors moderating mental health service delivery was conducted. A full list of the factors and supporting quotes can be found in S1 Appendix. The information retrieved highlighted pharmacists and pharmacy staff perception of a lack of support, recognition and integration within primary care referral pathways as major barriers to delivering mental health services in community pharmacy. Consumer stigma regarding mental health and their lack of awareness around service offering were also identified as a barrier from pharmacy and pharmacy staff point of view. As a result, a framework has been developed detailing factors to consider which can enable or hinder pharmacists’ and consumer empowerment in mental health care delivery in community pharmacy (Fig 2).

Sixteen participants were recruited in Round Two. Five of them dropped out before the beginning of the focus groups due to work commitments. Eleven participants (i.e., community pharmacists and staff located in urban and rural/regional areas) were allocated to the two follow up focus groups to validate the findings from Round One. Participant demographics are provided in Table 2. The average duration of the two focus groups was 86 minutes (SD 17.6).

Most participants agreed that there is a need to empower community pharmacists to promote their role as mental health providers for example, through continuous training:

CPU1: “I completely agree with this statement…how it’s phrased and I like the idea of empowering…not just educating pharmacists…it’s empowering them to take a stance and be more involved in the mental health aspect of their consumers..”

CPR2: “I agree with the last bit, especially that we need to empower ourselves as mental health services providers…it is something that comes up very often in pharmacy and it’s something that requires training because it’s not easy to do if you don’t know where to start or how to start that conversation with people.”

One of the participants pointed out that many aspects need to be considered and addressed to empower community pharmacists and pharmacy staff.

CPU5: “The main thing that stands out for me is in terms of empowering is that has to be multifaceted…it can’t be just through training and it can’t be just renumeration, it’s going to have to encompass all of those things.”

In some cases, participants reported that community pharmacists and pharmacy staff already have the skills to respond to consumers with mental health issues. Still, the lack of integration within the health system hindered achieving this goal.

CPR5: “I understand what you’re trying to say by empower, but I feel, in some cases it’s not about the pharmacists not having the power to do it, but it’s more like enabling them to be integrated as well” “The pharmacist role needs defining in this case as well because you’re talking about it being limited and then to promote it, but then what is the role of the pharmacist in light of the whole system? You know what I mean? It’s not just what one pharmacy thinks it should be, or what one area but the whole, we need to have consensus, so we don’t have to keep on you know validating the role of the pharmacist.”

Participants’ suggestions to improve the proposed framework were to establish some sort of priority to identify the first steps to consider enhancing the delivery of mental services in community pharmacies.

CPR5: “Yeah, I would yeah really love to see like a priority.”

CPR4: “We did identify a range of factors and I presume that a lot of those may carry more weight than others, so in terms of priority for what you might begin to address in service implementation, it’s not clear to me.”

CPU2: “I think I would like to see remuneration stand out more in the model.”

Participants were asked about strategies to promote pharmacists’ and staff empowerment in mental health, they suggested promoting pharmacists’ role, integrating and linking community pharmacists with other healthcare professionals.

CPU1: “Definitely more publicity about what a pharmacist can do, and maybe I personally think like the successful story on how you know my experience have helped consumers and from the consumer perspective it’s a very powerful message to other people.”

CPR2: “Linking pharmacists with the other healthcare providers in the region that are providing mental health services so that they can network properly and get to know, for example, the mental health team unit that might be working in their local area so that you know you’ve got a face and a name to somebody who might be the clinical case managers to your consumers.”

As in previous focus groups, some participants reinforced the possibility of including medication review services or MedsCheck (i.e., services consisting in a review of a consumer’s medicines to improve their understanding of their medicines and ultimately, their health outcomes) for consumers dealing with mental health services.

CPU2: “Presuming like we’re talking about implementing mental health services into Community pharmacy but recognising that we already have an existing suite of various services that we provide around medication management review, I’m talking about things like MedsCheck, so looking at how we can integrate and align any type of service provision with any existing services as well, so we don’t have an unrelated set of services.”

CPR3: “It could be something so simple, such as we’ve already got like, for example, a diabetes MedsCheck, we can have a mental health needs check something like that.”

When participants were introduced to the factors identified in the first round of focus groups, they highlighted governance as a first step to have organisational support to guide and define the provision of mental health services in the community pharmacy. The importance of consistency in providing quality services within community pharmacies to ensure consumers receive the same type of services and other healthcare professionals recognise the value of community pharmacists’ role was also pointed out by participants in both groups. Having support within the pharmacy workforce, at the workplace, and adequate staffing levels was highlighted by participants and, in some instances, linked to the provision of quality services. Mental health services remuneration and having time allocated to provide the services were the most significant factors highlighted by participants in both groups. Pharmacists’ continuous education and training were also highlighted as an essential factor to empowerment in mental health. Supporting quotations can be found in S2 Appendix.

Final proposed framework for pharmacists, pharmacy staff and consumers’ empowerment in mental health. As a result of the information retrieved from the follow-up focus groups, a final framework to enhance pharmacists, pharmacy staff and consumers’ empowerment in mental health has been proposed (Fig 3). A full description of the factors included in the framework can be found in Table 5.

Fig 3

Framework for pharmacists, pharmacy staff and consumers’ empowerment in mental health.

Table 5

Description of factors included in the framework.

Factors moderating community pharmacy mental health service delivery
Factor	Description	Example
Accessibility	Ensure community pharmacies have resources in place to ensure easy access to the community regardless of their situation	Consumers using a wheelchair may require a ramp to access the community pharmacy.
Physical layout (privacy)	Having a designated area to provide mental health services to ensure consumers’ feel safe to open up about their conditions. This factor has more impact in smaller areas (i.e., rural/regional) where there is less privacy	Pharmacies with counselling rooms may help to provide more comprehensive services to consumers, and they may feel safe.
Factors moderating community pharmacist and pharmacy staff empowerment in mental health
System Factors	Description	Example
Governance (Organisational support)	Having the set of processes, regulations, policies, and resources to define, regulate and standardise mental health services delivery in community pharmacies to enhance safety, reliability, and quality of care.	Framework defining the role of community pharmacists in mental health care to ensure there is consistency in practice and approach to care by community pharmacies.Guidelines and protocol to support the provision of quality mental health services
Remuneration	Community pharmacists/ staff being paid for the time allocated to provide quality mental health services	Lack of funding may prevent community pharmacists/ pharmacy staff from allocating a specific time to provide quality mental health services
Pharmacists’ role recognition by key stakeholders	Community pharmacists’/ staff role in mental health being defined and recognised by governments, consumers, and healthcare providers	Government and consumers may not understand or recognize how pharmacists/ pharmacy staff can help consumers with mental health
Promotion	Availability of resources promoting the role of community pharmacists/ staff in mental health	Mental health services provided in community pharmacies may be advertised through campaigns to increase people awareness of their services
Pharmacists’ integration (i.e., referral pathways, feedback loop)	Having access to consumers’ mental health information in documentation or through personal contact with other primary care providers. Availability of defined referral pathways	Feedback to pharmacists may be limited and multidisciplinary record keeping may be under-developed
Workplace factors	Description	Example
Workplace support and culture	Community pharmacists’ and staff ‘goals and priorities aligned. Team collaboration. Encouragement and support from employers	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff discuss and set priorities and strategies to approach consumers dealing with mental health issues.
Staffing levels and time	Community pharmacists’ and staff having the chance to allocate time to the provision of mental health services. The staffing levels have a direct impact on time	Small pharmacies may only have one to two employees which may hinder the provision of the service
Education and training	Community pharmacists’ and staff having the resources and support to upskill in mental health	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff may have information and access to specific training focused on mental health in their community pharmacy
Availability, support, and relationship with other health professionals	Community pharmacists/ staff having access to other primary care providers in their area. The access to primary care providers in remote areas is more limited than in urban areas	In rural areas, access to other mental health services may be limited. However, it may be easier to establish a close relationship with other health professionals
Individual factors	Description	Example
Skills, knowledge, and confidence	Community pharmacists’/ staff having the required tools to deliver quality mental health services to consumers	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff communication, active listening, reflection, empathy. Capacity to understand and meet people’s health literacy needs and recognize what consumers are taking and why
Receptiveness and willingness	Community pharmacists/ staff recognizing the importance of mental health and being willing to help consumers	Pharmacists and staff may not have initiative and motivation due to the lack of time or support
Mental toll	Community pharmacists’/ staff having access to resources to support their mental health	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff may have encountered a problematic consumer dealing with a mental illness, which may provoke the pharmacist to feel unsafe
Awareness of their role in mental health	Community pharmacists’/ staff understating their role in mental health	Integration with other mental healthcare providers may be limited, preventing community pharmacists from understanding their mental health role
Factors moderating consumers’ empowerment in mental health
External Factors	Description	Example
Provision of high-quality services according to consumer’s needs	Community pharmacists/ staff assessing and helping consumers according to their situations	Community pharmacists/ pharmacy staff talking with their consumers may identify the consumer does not have the financial resources to seek appropriate care
Pharmacists’ accessibility and approachability	Easy access to community pharmacists without appointment in a less clinical setting	Consumers in certain areas may not have access to other healthcare providers
Pharmacists’ skills	Community pharmacists and staff’ knowledge, empathy, reassurance, verbal, and non-verbal communication	Community pharmacists/ pharmacy staff may have the opportunity to make the consumers feel understood and normalise their condition
Continuity of care and follow-up	Community pharmacists and staff’ frequency of interactions with consumers	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff may see a consumer once or twice a week and can identify if a consumer is coping with their mental health
Rapport and trust	Community pharmacists/ staff establishing close relationships with consumers	Pharmacists/ pharmacy staff establishing a close relationship with a consumer may help to increase their confidence and willingness to talk about their condition
Individual factors	Description	Example
Stigma	Consumers’ own ideas regarding their mental health conditions	A consumer arrives at the pharmacy and feels judged by other consumers
Health literacy, knowledge, and confidence	Consumers’ having the resources to fully comprehend their conditions	A consumer may have poor health literacy level to understand their condition
Consumer characteristics	Consumers’ demographic characteristics such an age, race and background	A consumer arrives at the pharmacy, his first language is not English, and the pharmacy staff cannot communicate effectively with him
Willingness of the consumer	Consumers’ fully aware of the situation and wanting to receive help	A consumer who is aware of their mental health condition but is not willing to receive help

Discussion

Universally, greater stressors impact us in every life aspect in forms of occupational, social, cultural and health imposts. Primary health care at the interface of communities has become much more important and supporting mental health care is perhaps one of the greatest challenges our modern society has faced. The role of community pharmacists and pharmacies has become substantially more important in providing primary mental health support to communities. In this critical context, the present study explores factors (that enable or hinder) the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacies. Referral pathways and strategies for improvement have also been identified.

The results of this study have shown that there are multiple barriers (e.g., lack of governance, remuneration) and facilitators (e.g., pharmacists’ skills, accessibility) that are crucial to consider for promoting the role of community pharmacists as mental health providers in primary care. Pharmacists’ accessibility was identified as the most influential facilitator of mental health service delivery. Community pharmacists are at times the first point of contact for consumers who seek help for mental health conditions, especially in the current circumstances with limited access to other health professionals [41]. This is important for pharmacies operating after hours or in regional/rural communities where access to care may be limited.

Pharmacists’ specific skills and drug knowledge were highlighted key facilitators in providing quality mental health care. The positive clinical impact of pharmacists’ role in mental health has been previously demonstrated in the literature [42-44]. Consequently, another study found that pharmacist-led mental health adherence interventions for consumers with type 2 diabetes significantly improved psychotropic medication adherence in adult consumers [45].

Consumer willingness to receive a mental health service was identified as a facilitator of mental health service delivery. In a study evaluating consumers’ experience in a community pharmacy mental health program, participants recognised community pharmacists’ positive influence on their mental health and well-being [46]. However, as reported in this study, the stigma of people living with a mental health issue discourages individuals from getting proper mental health treatment. These results are consistent with literature indicating that the mental health stigma of consumers and mental health services providers has been shown to be a barrier to the effective management of mental health [21, 47, 48].

Training and education in mental health were also reported as facilitators for service provision. Specifically, the importance of training to address stigmatising beliefs and stereotypes has been highlighted [49]. Indeed, mental health training has been shown to impact pharmacists’ confidence positively [50, 51]. Particularly in a study participants indicated comfortability discussing mental illness with community pharmacists trained in Mental Health First Aid (MHFA), revealing an opportunity for pharmacists to expand access to mental health services by being trained in MHFA and counselling about mental illness [52]. Thus, upskilling the pharmacy workforce in mental health should be prioritised.

Participants located in rural and regional areas highlighted rapport with consumers as a facilitator for the provision of mental health services in their communities. Building close relationships with consumers may positively affect their willingness to openly discuss their condition [53]. Collaboration with other primary care providers was also identified as important for the provision of mental health care. The positive influence that pharmacists’ collaboration with other primary care providers has on consumers’ outcomes has been demonstrated [54, 55]. Adopting a collaborative approach to mental health care has been shown to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of services by sharing healthcare providers’ knowledge and skills [56].

Governance (across the pharmacy profession) was highlighted as a critical factor by the participants. The importance and influence that governance has on effective integration in mental health care has been previously identified [57]. Indeed, pharmacists’ integration in primary care was also identified as a requirement for the provision of mental health care in community pharmacies. However, pharmacists and pharmacy staff in metropolitan areas reported not having a close relationship with other healthcare professionals and not being fully considered part of the primary care team. Recent research regarding community pharmacists’ integration within primary care in Australia stated the need to include policy and funding support to promote integration models and enable access to services conducted in conjunction with pharmacists [58].

Good governance has also been associated to improvements in the safety and quality of health care services through the implementation of policy, educational materials and processes for improvement. It determines how health services are delivered and has a direct influence on the safety and quality of services [59]. Consideration should be given to the policy and legislative changes required to further regulate, define and promote the role of community pharmacists in mental health care and as an integral part of primary care teams. The framework proposed as a result of this study may be a first step to strengthening governance around mental health support in community pharmacies. This in return, maybe essential to promote consistency and quality assurance of the services provided by community pharmacists to people dealing with mental health conditions. The use of guides or structured protocols to standardise mental health services delivery and protocolise how community pharmacists and staff approach people living with mental illness, as proposed by participants in this study, appears to be a feasible solution to increase the quality of service provided while ensuring consumers receive consistency in service and referral.

Another factor identified as a barrier by participants was the lack of support in the workplace influenced by others such as lack of remuneration and time. A similar situation was found in a study exploring community pharmacists’ perception of their role in primary mental health care where participants reported the support provided to consumers was influenced by the philosophy of the business owner [60]. This is not surprising as service provision has been previously reported as time-demanding, making it challenging to deal with other commitments in the pharmacy [29]. Furthermore, this situation is even less sustainable by the lack of remuneration, preventing community pharmacists from providing more comprehensive services [61]. Thus, to guarantee that community pharmacists have the capacity to provide mental health support and that this support is sustainable, the development of a specific funding model should be considered.

Privacy was identified as a barrier for community pharmacists in rural and regional areas. Consumers located in smaller population density areas appeared to have a bigger reticence to disclose personal information. This may be attributable to the fear that this information will pass to their community. Having a private area to provide professional services in the community pharmacy has been proven to help consumers build trusting relationships with their pharmacists [62]. Thus, having a consultation room within the community pharmacy seems to be essential to enhance consumers’ willingness to receive mental health services.

Most participants in urban and regional areas reported that the primary contact of referral was GPs and, in the most severe cases, to mental health crisis teams. Published research focused on pharmacist and GP collaboration has shown benefits (i.e., improved drug knowledge, sharing of care and clinical reassurance when managing complex consumers, easy access to consumer information, better integration, and satisfaction) [43, 63, 64]. Participants also indicated they referred consumers to online and phone mental health services for consumers with milder mental illness. These services appear to positively benefit consumers who are unwilling to use other available services and those with limited access [65]. Providing information around these services and options at the community pharmacy appears to be an opportunity, for those not already doing so, to ensure consumers have access to tools to deal with their mental illness.

Participants suggested ideas to improve the delivery of services by community pharmacists in mental health. Regardless of having undertaken the Mental Health First Aid course, participants commented on the possibility of including additional training with more practical scenarios relevant to community pharmacy and using people with lived experience. A Blended version of the MHFA course specifically tailored for pharmacists and pharmacy staff is currently available. This version consists of self-paced online learning modules followed by a practical classroom-based (face-to-face or live webinar) session using case-studies, videos and resources tailored to their learning needs [66]. However, the standard face-to-face MHFA course seems to be still the most common version used by pharmacists [67]. Pharmacists’ [68] and pharmacy students’ skills after receiving MHFA training have been assessed in the literature (e.g., by using simulated consumer scenarios) [50] and have demonstrated the positive influence of training on pharmacists’ knowledge, attitudes, and confidence [50, 51, 68].

The use of real-life scenarios and the inclusion of multidisciplinary teams during training have shown improvements in the skills of healthcare professionals [69]. In the same way, studies including role-play as part of the training have demonstrated improved professional skills (e.g., recognition of possible scenarios and solutions, increased confidence and communication skills, promoted effective discussion, and active participation) [70, 71]. Despite this, some studies assessing pharmacists’ confidence to provide mental health services using self-assessment tools have identified that participants often overestimate their confidence to deliver the services in practice after training [72, 73]. Nonetheless, including people with life experiences as part of the training to simulate real life situations should be considered to enhance pharmacists’ mental health skills in practice.

Participants highlighted the need to promote their role in mental health and agreed that it would be beneficial to promote services offered by community pharmacies to increase community awareness. One study conducted by da Costa et al. demonstrated that a pharmacists’ awareness campaign about early detection of atrial fibrillation enhanced effective communication pathways for interprofessional collaboration [74]. Greater familiarity and comfort with available mental-health resources may help alleviate some of the barriers that community pharmacists experience concerning mental health pharmacy practice. Participants also identified the need for remuneration for service provision and suggested the possibility of funding a medication review service (e.g., MedsCheck) focused on mental health. The effectiveness of medication review services in supporting consumers with chronic diseases have been widely reported in the literature [75, 76]. Specifically, a study conducted by McMillan et al. showed that mental health medication support service delivered by trained pharmacy staff in community pharmacies across Australia had a positive impact on consumers outcomes [77]. This should be considered to enhance the care of consumers with mental health conditions whilst ensuring the continuity and sustainability of these services over time.

As part of the present study, a framework to guide pharmacists’ and consumers’ empowerment in mental health is proposed. This model depicts two main domains (pharmacists, consumers). Both domains are influenced by external factors and individual factors (i.e., barriers and facilitators moderating pharmacists’/ consumers’ empowerment). The most influential factor to enable pharmacists’ roles in mental health and integration within primary care is governance. Having a structured system supporting the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacies is required as a first step to enhance and define the role of pharmacists’ as mental health providers. Additionally, funding is required to facilitate the provision of mental health services and guarantee their sustainability. Lack of communication and integration with other primary care providers promotes pharmacists’ confusion about their role and where they fit within the primary care team, which can also influence pharmacists’ confidence in providing these services. A workplace that supports and encourages pharmacists and pharmacy staff to grow professionally is essential to successfully delivering this type of service. Moreover, dealing with people with mental issues can negatively impact pharmacists’ own mental health, which affects their receptiveness and willingness to provide mental health services to the community. Pharmacists’ self-empowerment is determined by their skills and knowledge. Continuous training and education are required to adapt to new situations, respond to different scenarios and provide successful services.

Consumers’ empowerment is influenced by personal factors such as their knowledge and health literacy. Consumers’ understanding of their condition is a facilitator in their awareness and motivation to independently seek help. Pharmacists’ and pharmacy staff skills such as empathy, reassurance, verbal and non-verbal communication are crucial to reduce consumer stigma and create a supportive relationship with consumers. This may also influence the consumers’ willingness to change and increase their confidence to discuss their conditions and medications. Lastly, pharmacist and consumer empowerment in mental health are also affected by characteristics of the community pharmacy. The physical layout of the pharmacy and having a private area to provide these services may influence consumers’ comfort and confidence to discuss their condition.

Strengths and limitations

Thirty-three community pharmacists and pharmacy staff from urban, regional and rural areas of NSW, Australia participated in focus groups. The findings of this research may not represent the full spectrum of opinions/experiences of community pharmacists across Australia. Therefore, their replicability to community pharmacies located in other areas may be indicative but limited. The use of NGT facilitated the needed structural framework to discuss and obtain via consensus a list of the most significant barriers and facilitators moderating the delivery of mental health services in community pharmacy. However, the NGT approach can be regimented and lends to a single purpose. Thus, open discussion was conducted to allow more in-depth exploration of participants’ ideas. A limitation of this study is that the framework proposed includes factors moderating consumers’ empowerment in mental health from pharmacists and staff perspectives. Therefore, this should be considered as some of the factors identified may differ from future research including customers’ perspectives.

Conclusion

The qualitative work undertaken in this study explored community pharmacists’ and pharmacy staff experiences and perspectives regarding the provision of mental health services in community pharmacy. Overall, community pharmacists and pharmacy staff role in mental health is moderated by several factors. The exploration of referral pathways used by community pharmacists to refer a person living with a mental illness has made evident the lack of integration of community pharmacists within mental health primary care pathways, recognition of the pharmacist in the management of mental health, and limitation of service delivery through limited remuneration. These findings are consistent with the wider body of research within the discipline, in other clinical areas. As a result of this research, a framework detailing the factors for community pharmacists and pharmacy staff influencing the delivery of mental health services in pharmacy is proposed. Future research should assess the applicability of the framework in practice in other settings. Furthermore, customers perspectives and experiences regarding mental health service delivery in community pharmacies should be explored to validate the results of this study and identify additional factors affecting their empowerment.

Factors moderating pharmacists and consumers’ empowerment in mental health and supporting quotations resulting from the thematic analysis in Round One.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Factors highlighted for pharmacists’ empowerment in mental health and supporting quotations resulting from the thematic analysis in Round-Two.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Dec 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vijayaprakash Suppiah, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: A qualitative exploration of mental health services provided in community pharmacies

Comments to the Author

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In this paper, the authors present the results of a qualitative study using thematic analysis based on data collected from community pharmacists and pharmacy staff across metropolitan, regional, and rural areas of New South Wales, Australia. The objectives of this study are to examine the factors that support the delivery of mental health services in Australian community pharmacies and propose ideas for improvement, particularly in regional and rural regions.

Major comments

Introduction:

The background provides context for this research; however, I think that it is a bit long and unfocused. Specifically, it covers mental health problems globally and in Australia and their negative impacts on the economic side, and how COVID-19 deteriorates mental health problems. In my opinion, the real meat of the introduction begins on Page.5 line 104 because this is the introduction of the roles of community pharmacies in delivering mental health care in Australia. I think that the authors should re-assess the material prior to this paragraph and determine which information is most germane to meet this study's primary objective. In addition, I think the authors should highlight the novel of this study.

Methods:

Major Comment 1:

There is a lot of duplication of methodology between the text and figure 1. I would encourage the authorship team to streamline presentation of information. I would also encourage authors put data analysis section together if applicable.

Major Comment 2:

The authors state participants were recruited using purposive sampling of focus groups. Please elaborate in greater detail on how this was done, including 1) What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for recruitments? 2) Do authors include chain pharmacies or independent pharmacies? 3)Do those pharmacies offer any specialty services (e.g., mental health services) before recruiting into the study? 4) Do those pharmacies have similar volume of prescription dispensed per day/week or have similar pharmacist/staff ratios? Elaboration on the above details will give readers greater insight an assurance that the integrity of data (and subsequent conclusion drawn from them) are defensible

Major Comment 3:

Line 158. The author state that “Each focus group meeting was divided into two stages” in Round one. However, only the first 4 focus group went through 2 stages based on the context and figure 1. Please clarify if there is a discrepancy existing between the statement and figure 1 or provide more information or purposes why choose to use different methodology in Round 1? In addition, consider adding the aim of the Round 1

Major Comment 4:

Line 242. The author state that “The goal was to recruit between 4 and 7 participants per focus group” in Round 2. The number of participants in Round 2 per group was less than Round 1 and the number of focus group was also less than Round 1. Would it be a potential bias in data reporting or validation?

Results:

Major Comment 1:

Author mentioned that there is a network of 5,822 pharmacies in Australia in the introduction section. Would the results of this study have any potential bias because of the sample size?

Major Comment 2:

The authors identified 24 factors that enable or hinder mental health service delivery in community pharmacies. It is a little bit unclear how did those factors be identified? Were they identified through the 2 nominal questions in Round 1 only or combined with thematic analysis later? Consider elaborating in greater detail on how this was done.

Major Comment 3:

What were the themes from Round 1 and Round 2? I would encourage the authors to use more tables to summarize the themes with supportive quotes from Round 1 and Round 2. It is good to have great details in the texts, but sometimes it is hard to follow, especially since this manuscript has two rounds of information with multiple themes. Therefore, I would recommend streamlining some texts and putting the additional quotes into tables if applicable.

Discussions:

Major Comment 1:

Paragraph 5. The authors discussed the impact of governance in this paragraph. Per table 5, governance is defined as the availability of resources to guide, support, maintain and improve the reliability, safety, and quality of the services and standardise mental health service delivery in community pharmacy. There is no clear relationship between governance and policy. Consider providing more details about the governance in the text and how it links to the policy in the discussion.

Major Comment 2:

Limitation. The authors should state generalizability as a limitation due to the sample size. Generalizability may further limit the methodology which considers the experiences of participants which may vary considerably among different pharmacies. In addition, selection bias may be existing because some pharmacists were certified and some were not.

Conclusion:

Major Comment 1:

In the method section, the authors did describe the plan to evaluate the role of pharmacies during COVID-19 pandemic. To me, it is a bit inappropriate to draw the conclusion because it was not derived from this work in the results section.

Additional note:

1. Figures: I would recommend increasing the resolutions of all figures

2. Line 255. The author state that “participants were presented with a framework”. It is a little bit unclear how the framework was presented. Did participants see the figure 2?

3. Table 1. The table shows that some pharmacists and pharmacy staff who were not Mental Health First Aid certified. Is this a nationwide or statewide level certification? Would the results be different if study only included pharmacists and pharmacy staffs who are Mental Health First Aid certified?

4. Line 592. Missing figure# or word in the beginning?

5. Consider to include what is the next step of the future research to expand the role of community pharmacy in mental health delivery in Australia

Reviewer #2: This is a small study, and reflects a potential trend?...I would widen the population of community pharmacists to at least statistical significance, and then present the date as a potential alternative therapeutic modality which may supplant others.........

The big error that I find is thst this only addresses prescription meds, and not OTC meds which are 'prescribed' by the pharmacists.......that of course is an established mode, but some are also of precriptive use if dose is doubled.....many are OTC at 1/2 dose.....hmmmmm...

Reviewer #3: This paper describes a round of focus groups with pharmacists and pharmacy staff exploring facilitators and barriers to mental health services in community pharmacy. It addresses an important area of trying to progress much needed support for pharmacists’ roles in mental health care. It is generally well written but I have two key issues with the paper as present:

• Length – although I note that the submission guidelines do not stipulate a word count, I feel this paper is excessively long and the paper could be significantly shortened, almost be half. The key messages get lost and a succinct paper is much clearer for the reader. I estimated the word count to be more than 8700 words.

• The proposed framework suggests factors moderating patients’ (note comment below about language and use of term patient) self-empowerment. However, I have major concerns about this part of the framework as consumers/people with lived experience were not part of this research. Data was only gathered from pharmacists/pharmacy staff and I feel it is too much of a reach to then propose what moderates consumers self-empowerment based on the data. I suggest framework be revised to acknowledge this and identify consumer involvement in this area as where further research is needed.

Background:

• It is currently very long and could be significantly cut down. For example, the first 1.5 pages could be condensed into 1 paragraph about the prevalence and burden of mental health problems

• A variety of references are used for these figures on prevalence/burden. Ensure the primary source is being cited – e.g. Black Dog Institute flyer rather than data from the National survey of mental health and wellbeing

• Introduction to pharmacists’ roles in mental health describes what pharmacists can do, but it should summarise the evidence supporting these roles. In particular, what is known in the literature about barriers and facilitators to pharmacists’ roles in mental health care already? What governance/policy frameworks already exist for the pharmacy profession in the mental health space? In addition, what is known about barriers and facilitators to pharmacists’ roles more broadly in other areas that could be adapted here? The introduction is very long, but it could be much more succinct as well as better at identifying the gaps in the literature and how this study aims to fill those gaps.

Methods:

• I feel the methods a little confusing to follow. Round one has stage one and stage two with 4 focus groups using NGT, then a further two focus groups. These seems like two separate phases, and it seems like three rounds of focus groups not two?

• Page 9 line 224 – This sentence is a bit confusing and could be clarified? ‘to identify the underpinning reasons for participants selection and examine the data obtained’

• Page 10 line 244 – interview guide or focus group guide?

Results:

• ‘allocated according to their characteristics into six groups’ – explain how allocation occurred? And clarify did this mean that participants with training or no training were grouped together into focus groups?

• Table 1 – acronyms used here and in test of results. These are confusing to follow as reader needs to keep going back to see what they mean. I question whether they are useful?

• Table 2 – some of the figures don’t add up. E.g. pharmacy staff – 6 born in Aust and 2 born in England but only 7 in total? For country of birth – if only 1 or 2 in non-Aust born category perhaps merge?

• How do demographics compare to pharmacist population across Australia? Seems to be very high number of females and percentage born in Australia which may not be generalizable with pharmacy population.

• Page 17 – line 307 onwards. Thematic analysis referred to here – can it be clarified where this data comes from? I think it is stage two of round one? But it is confusing to follow

• Page 17 – line 319 – ‘mental health specialist’ – language here is incorrect/inappropriate. Pharmacists cannot directly refer to a specialist such as a psychiatrist. Rather it seems the pharmacists are referring to calling an ambulance in a mental health crisis or referring back to a community mental health team, which has nurses/psychiatrists as part of their mental health care team.

• Should be consistent with describing demographics of participants in round one and two. Round two, readers only told that all are female? Perhaps merge these sections to the start of results to clarify number and demographics of all participants in each round – then go on to describe results?

• Page 22 – first sentence. Clarify grammar

• General comment re quotes in results section. I suggest cutting down the number and length of quotes. A number of quotes are duplicative and others are very long which could be cut down to just present key points. E.g. quotes of page 24 could be cut down to one on guidelines and one on governance but currently there are 8 quotes. There are numerous examples of this that could help cut down the length of this paper.

• I don’t think it is appropriate to name pharmacy chains – deidentify these. Also, these are not relevant to an international audience.

• Page 26 – line 528 – grammar

• Add footnotes to clarify any Australian relevant things in quote which need context for an international readership – e.g. medicare item number on page 28

• Table 5 – using wheelchair example of accessibility doesn’t seem to fit with what is often meant by accessibility here? Ie being able to talk to a pharmacist 7 days a week, without an appointment etc?

Discussion:

• Both the introduction and discussion mention the COVID-19 pandemic, but this does not seem to be mentioned in any of the results? Particularly as this is how the discussion starts? While the literature describes the additional pressures placed on communities as well as pharmacists in the mental health space, the results here don’t describe this. I would suggest removing discussion relating to the pandemic, except perhaps to highlight the even greater role pharmacies have had to play because of the pandemic.

• The discussion is generally well written but there is significantly more literature known in the area of the effectiveness of pharmacist led mental health services – even systematic reviews that should be cited/discussed to give context of what is known in the area and how these results add value. As well as literature on barriers/facilitators to mental health service delivery.

• In addition, literature outside the pharmacy space should be discussed/compared to look at what is known that could contribute here. E.g. in the area of mental health stigma, patient empowerment. Do consumers even want pharmacists to have a role in mental health service delivery?

• Page 37 – MHFA – give reference and definition of what this is as not necessarily known to all. Or when mentioning a service such as MedsCheck – add footnote or a reference.

• Discussion around MHFA. There is a pharmacy specific version of MHFA available which has pharmacy content and case studies. There is also a refresher course available already where participants can get re-accredited after a 3-year period. There is also significant literature in the pharmacy space about MHFA evaluation, the use of simulation to test MHFA skills and confidence. These should be discussed here.

• Limitations – I suggest adding a limitation about the lack of consumer involvement in this study.

General:

• Language in mental illness. A few terms used in the paper can be problematic or stigmatizing when describing people living with a mental illness. People often do not like to be considered a ‘patient’ and you may consider an alternative term, e.g. a person with lived experienced of/or living with a mental illness, or mental health consumer. Also, the term ‘suffer’ has negative connotations and it is preferred to describe as ‘living with’ or ‘experiencing’

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Gerald Dieter Griffin,PharmD,MD

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

5 Feb 2022

All responses have been included within the Response to Reviewers document.

Submitted filename: Reponses to reviewers R1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Mar 2022

1 Apr 2022

All editor requests have been addressed in the accompanying materials

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE-reponses to reviewers R2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Apr 2022

A qualitative exploration of mental health services provided in community pharmacies

PONE-D-21-35278R2

Dear Dr. Hill,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vijayaprakash Suppiah, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

3 May 2022

PONE-D-21-35278R2

A qualitative exploration of mental health services provided in community pharmacies

Dear Dr. Hill:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vijayaprakash Suppiah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE