https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-815X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Pharmacists are expanding their participation in veterinary healthcare teams and assuming roles beyond traditional dispensing duties. However, the scope of these collaborative practices and the degree of mutual recognition vary substantially across regions.
Objectives
This scoping review aimed to organize the existing literature on collaboration between veterinarians and pharmacists, clarifying current roles, practical applications, and professional perceptions within the veterinary field.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted to examine the roles, practices, and perceptions associated with veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration in veterinary medicine and related fields. Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, and additionally screened Google Scholar to identify gray literature (from database inception to August 2025, in English or Japanese). Records were independently screened at the title/abstract and full-text levels using predefined eligibility criteria, and relevant studies were identified.
Results
The search yielded 239 records, of which 16 studies published between 2007 and 2024 were included. Studies were conducted primarily in the United States (n = 7), New Zealand (n = 3), and Japan (n = 3); one study collected data from both Japan and Taiwan. Most studies employed cross-sectional survey designs. Pharmacist roles most frequently involved compounding and dispensing for animal patients (62.5%), followed by drug information (DI) and consultation (37.5%), inventory and supply management (25.0%), client education (18.8%), and safety and exposure control (12.5%).
Conclusions
This scoping review demonstrates that veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration is described within a limited and regionally variable evidence base, with pharmacists most often contributing through compounding/dispensing and drug information support. Sustained and scalable implementation will require improved mutual understanding of professional roles, strengthened veterinary-specific education for pharmacists, and more robust empirical research to inform collaborative practice models.
Citation: Kambayashi D, Suzuki S, Hirohara M (2026) Veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration in veterinary medicine: Roles, practices, and perceptions—A scoping review. PLoS One 21(7): e0355233. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355233
Editor: Jenny Wilkinson, Endeavour College of Natural Health, AUSTRALIA
Received: February 14, 2026; Accepted: July 17, 2026; Published: July 31, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Kambayashi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: DK received a grant (Grant Number: JP25K18380) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI. URL: https://www.jsps.go.jp/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In recent years, veterinary medicine has undergone a remarkable transformation, mirroring the increasing sophistication and complexity of human healthcare [1,2]. This evolution reflects not only technological progress but also a growing recognition of companion animals as integral members of families and communities [3]. Because companion animals and other veterinary patients are increasingly perceived as family, their health has become inextricably linked to the physical and emotional well-being of their owners [4,5]. The demand for high-quality, specialized veterinary care has concurrently increased, placing unprecedented responsibility on veterinarians to manage complex drug regimens similar to those encountered in human medicine [6].
To address these growing challenges, the broader integration of pharmacists into the veterinary healthcare team represents a logical and necessary evolution. Although veterinary clinical pharmacologists also possess comparable specialized skills, pharmacists remain an underutilized resource in veterinary practice. Just as interprofessional collaboration has become the gold standard in human healthcare to ensure medication safety [7,8], a comparable partnership in veterinary medicine holds substantial promise. By leveraging pharmacists’ expertise in pharmacology alongside veterinarians’ diagnostic acumen, the healthcare team can optimize clinical outcomes and reduce medication-related errors [9]. Moreover, this collaboration extends beyond the clinic by supporting owners in their ability to care for their animals, thereby preserving the human–animal bond. Ultimately, establishment of a robust veterinarian–pharmacist partnership creates a synergistic environment in which veterinarians, pharmacists, animal patients, and their owners all derive mutual benefit [10].
Despite these apparent advantages, practical implementation of veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration remains fragmented and inconsistent [11]. Unlike the well-established interprofessional models found in human healthcare, the veterinary–pharmacist interface lacks a standardized framework or clearly defined roles [12]. Although instances of collaboration do exist, they often occur in isolation, driven by both a structural disconnect and a mutual lack of understanding between the two professions regarding each other's scopes of practice and specialized skills [13]. As a result, how veterinarians and pharmacists actually work together remains largely unexplored and insufficiently documented in a systematic manner.
The purpose of this scoping review is to map the existing literature on veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration. By clarifying the current landscape of collaborative practices, identifying key characteristics, and highlighting gaps in the literature, this review aims to provide a foundational roadmap for fostering a mutually beneficial partnership that enhances outcomes for veterinarians, pharmacists, animal patients, and owners alike.
Methods
Study design and protocol
The review protocol was prepared using a template developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute [14]. The conduct and reporting of this scoping review were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines [15]. No protocol was registered for this review.
Eligibility criteria
The eligibility criteria were developed using the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework. The population comprised veterinarians and pharmacists. The concept was defined as collaborative practice between veterinarians and pharmacists, as well as activities intended to establish, promote, or evaluate such collaboration. The context encompassed animal health, veterinary medicine, public health, and One Health–related domains, including clinical practice, research, and community-based activities.
Inclusion criteria
Articles were included if they involved both veterinarians and pharmacists in roles consistent with their respective professional scopes of practice and reported collaborative activities, practice, or research undertaken jointly by veterinarians and pharmacists.
Exclusion criteria
Articles were excluded if only one of the two professions, either a veterinarian or a pharmacist, was involved or mentioned, or if the nature of veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration was not described in sufficient detail. Articles were also excluded when activities were primarily student-led and lacked educational or practice-based involvement of veterinarians and/or pharmacists, when content was limited to recommendations or commentary not grounded in clinical data or empirical survey data, or when the article was not relevant to veterinary practice or public health practice. In addition, articles not written in English or Japanese, as well as those for which the full text could not be retrieved or confirmed, were excluded.
Information sources and search strategy
Two reviewers (DK and SS) independently searched for eligible studies published in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web (Japan Medical Abstracts Society). While CAB Abstracts is widely recognized as a premier database for veterinary literature, we utilized Web of Science and PubMed to capture literature at the multidisciplinary intersection of human biomedical sciences, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine. In addition, Google Scholar was searched to identify gray literature. No restrictions were applied to publication date (search from database inception). The search was limited to articles written in English or Japanese. The final search was conducted on 30 August 2025. Search strategies were tailored to each database. The following keywords were used: “pharmacist” AND “veterinarian,” using English terms and Japanese equivalents as appropriate for each source. Detailed search strategies for each database are provided in the Supplementary Material (S1 Appendix). The search strategy was developed exclusively by the authors; a medical librarian or information specialist was not consulted during its design or execution.
Selection of sources of evidence
All retrieved citations were uploaded to Rayyan [16], a web-based collaboration platform designed specifically to streamline the screening process for systematic and scoping reviews. Within this platform, duplicate records were identified and removed prior to screening. In the first screening stage, studies retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web were assessed based on titles and abstracts, whereas records identified through Google Scholar were evaluated using titles and document types to determine eligibility. Full-text articles that met the inclusion criteria at this stage underwent subsequent full-text screening.
Both screening stages were performed independently by two reviewers (DK and SS). Any disagreements were resolved through discussion, with arbitration by a third reviewer (MH) when necessary.
Data charting process and data items
Key bibliographic data (title, authors, publication year, country, language, research approach, and main outcomes) were charted for all eligible studies. Each study was then grouped into one of five themes. These themes were developed through an iterative process; initial broad categories were established a priori based on the authors’ expertise and research objectives and were subsequently refined and finalized during the data extraction phase. Additional data were extracted as appropriate.
All extracted data were compiled in Microsoft Excel (S1 Dataset). Contributions from each researcher were examined and discussed by the full research team to reach consensus.
Results
Selection of sources of evidence
In total, 239 records were retrieved through database searches, including PubMed (n = 131), Web of Science (n = 62), Cochrane Reviews (n = 10), Cochrane Trials (n = 1), Ichushi-Web (n = 31), and Google Scholar (n = 4). After removal of 58 duplicate records, 181 records were retained for screening. During the initial screening phase, 134 records were excluded based on titles, abstracts, and publication types. Full-text assessment was subsequently conducted for the remaining reports, resulting in the exclusion of an additional 31 records. Consequently, 16 studies [10,12,17–30] were included in the final review (Fig 1).
Characteristics of the included studies
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 16 included studies. Publications spanned from 2007 to 2024 and were conducted across several countries, most frequently in the United States (n = 7) [12,17,19,22–25], followed by New Zealand (n = 3) [20,21,26] and Japan (n = 3) [10,27,28]. One study was conducted across both Japan and Taiwan. Additional studies were conducted in Australia [18], Taiwan [27], Malaysia [30], and Brazil [29]. Most studies were published in English, although two were reported in Japanese [27,28] (Fig 2).
The United States was the largest contributor (n = 7), followed by New Zealand (n = 3) and Japan (n = 3). Other contributing regions include Australia, Brazil, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Darker shading indicates a higher frequency of reports, illustrating that veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration is a global phenomenon evolving across diverse regulatory environments. Note: One study collected data from both Japan and Taiwan. The base map was obtained from Freemap.jp (https://n.freemap.jp/), which provides vector maps free of copyright restrictions.
Regarding study design, the majority employed cross-sectional survey methods [10,21,23–30], while qualitative studies, review articles, and expert consensus-based research were also represented. Participants included pharmacists, veterinarians, and animal owners, reflecting multiple perspectives on interprofessional collaboration in veterinary pharmacotherapy. Studies were conducted in diverse settings, including community pharmacies (n = 4) [10,24,25,27], veterinary hospitals (n = 12) [10,17,19–22,24,25,27–30], zoos (n = 3) [18,21,26], and academic or expert networks (n = 2) [12,23]. Overall, the literature highlighted pharmacists’ contributions to veterinary care, such as compounding and dispensing for animal patients, providing drug information to veterinarians and owners, supporting medication safety, and identifying barriers and opportunities to expand pharmacist–veterinarian collaboration.
Pharmacist roles in veterinary medicine
Table 2 summarizes the pharmacist roles reported in the included studies across different countries. Overall, the most frequently described role was compounding and dispensing, identified in 10 of the 16 studies (62.5%). This activity was most commonly reported in studies from the United States (n = 6) [12,17,19,22,24,25] and New Zealand (n = 2) [21,26], with additional reports from Australia (n = 1) [18] and Brazil (n = 1) [29]. Drug information and consultation were described in 6 studies (37.5%), including those conducted in the United States (n = 3) [12,19,23], Japan (n = 1) [10], Japan/Taiwan (n = 1) [27], and Malaysia (n = 1) [30]. Inventory and supply management were mentioned in 4 studies (25.0%), most frequently in Japan (n = 2) [10,28], followed by New Zealand (n = 1) [20] and the United States (n = 1) [12]. Safety and exposure control were identified in only 2 studies (12.5%), conducted in Brazil (n = 1) [29] and the United States (n = 1) [12]. Finally, client education was reported in 3 studies (18.8%), including studies from Japan (n = 1) [28], Japan/Taiwan (n = 1) [27], and the United States (n = 1) [12].
Discussion
This scoping review mapped the landscape of veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration based on 16 included studies. The analysis indicates that while the pharmacist’s role in veterinary medicine is expanding beyond traditional dispensing, the nature of this collaboration varies considerably by region and practice setting. Distinct regional patterns were observed: a focus on compounding services appears dominant in Western regions (United States, Oceania), whereas emphasis on inventory management and hospital safety is more frequently reported in Asia and South America. Despite mutual recognition of the potential benefits of interprofessional teamwork, a consistent barrier identified across multiple studies is veterinarians’ concern regarding pharmacists’ limited training in species-specific physiology. This perceived “knowledge gap” appears to be a major factor limiting progression from administrative interactions to more integrated clinical collaboration.
Barriers to collaboration
Hesitation to delegate clinical tasks to pharmacists is rooted largely in concerns about professional competency related to non-human species. Surveys from the United States and Malaysia indicate that while veterinarians value logistical support, they remain cautious about pharmacists providing clinical advice because of the risks associated with species-specific toxicology and metabolic differences [24,25,30]. Veterinarians often view pharmacists as experts in human pharmacotherapy who may inadvertently apply human medical logic to animal patients. Indeed, real-world reports and surveys from professional organizations, such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, consistently document these practical barriers [31–33]. Recurrent issues include unauthorized therapeutic substitutions and unapproved dosage alterations by community pharmacies, which in some instances have led to adverse patient outcomes [31–33]. Furthermore, significant regulatory variations and a lack of validated compounding formulas for animal patients continue to pose serious risks of toxicity and therapeutic failure [34]. While these clinical safety concerns highlight the critical need for collaborative dialogue, interprofessional integration is further hindered by a fundamental disconnect in role perception. In Japan, for example, pharmacists express a desire to contribute more directly to animal care, yet their envisioned roles do not always align with the practical needs of veterinarians, who prioritize support in inventory management and drug information rather than general dispensing [10]. In addition, the need for pharmacy education regarding veterinary medicine has been increasingly reported in multiple countries [35–37]. Collectively, these findings suggest that foundational education in veterinary pharmacotherapy is a prerequisite for pharmacists to gain the professional trust required for deeper integration into veterinary healthcare teams.
Evolution of roles
Despite these barriers, the literature demonstrates a diversification of pharmacists’ contributions. Historically, particularly in Western contexts, the primary value of pharmacists in veterinary medicine has been technical, most notably in compounding medications to address administration challenges. Several studies highlight how pharmacists facilitate therapeutic adherence by modifying dosage forms, such as creating transdermal gels or flavoring medications for animal patients with chronic conditions [17,19,22]. More recent reports, however, suggest an expanding scope in which pharmacists are increasingly valued for their management capabilities. In animal hospital settings, pharmacists are beginning to alleviate administrative burdens by optimizing inventory control and managing drug supplies [10,28]. Moreover, in high-risk environments such as veterinary oncology, pharmacists are emerging as key contributors to occupational safety. Evidence from Brazil indicates that pharmacist-led management of antineoplastic agents is associated with improved adherence to biosafety protocols, thereby reducing hazardous exposure among veterinary staff [29]. This shift from “product-centered” to “system-centered” contributions reflects a notable maturation of the pharmacist’s role within veterinary medicine.
Regional variations in collaboration models
This review found that collaboration models are strongly shaped by local regulatory environments and medical cultures. In North America and Oceania (United States, New Zealand, Australia), collaboration is predominantly technique-driven, centered on compounding to address gaps in approved veterinary products or suitable dosage forms [12,17–19,21,22,24–26]. By contrast, a management- and information-driven model appears more prominent in parts of Asia. In countries such as Japan and Malaysia, where in-house dispensing by veterinarians is common, pharmacists often enter the care team through drug information services, inventory management, or complementary medicine [10,30]. For instance, in Japan and Taiwan, pharmacists play a distinctive role in advising owners on Kampo (traditional herbal medicine), effectively bridging human traditional medicine and veterinary applications [27].
Importance of non-English evidence
An important finding of this review is that Japan is a significant contributor to the literature (n = 3), comparable to New Zealand and second only to the United States. This suggests substantial interest and the development of distinct practice models in non-Western contexts. However, valuable insights—such as pharmacist involvement in Kampo medicine or detailed inventory systems reported in Japanese-language studies [27,28]—remain largely inaccessible to the broader international community because of language barriers. Exclusion of non-English articles from systematic searches risks overlooking innovative, locally developed models that may address shared global challenges. Given recent advances in neural machine translation technologies, future researchers and practitioners should actively seek out and translate relevant non-English literature, including databases such as Ichushi-Web. Addressing this linguistic barrier is essential to capturing the full diversity and potential of global veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration.
Value of pharmacists in highly specialized contexts
Pharmacists’ expertise appears to be most readily accepted in specialized clinical environments where standard protocols are insufficient. In zoological and wildlife settings, extreme species diversity creates complex therapeutic challenges that require advanced pharmaceutical reasoning related to pharmacokinetics (i.e., how an animal’s body absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes drugs) and formulation (i.e., the process of preparing customized dosage forms to suit species-specific anatomical and physiological needs). In these contexts, pharmacists are utilized not merely as dispensers but as problem-solvers within the veterinary team [18,26]. Similarly, in veterinary university hospitals and specialty centers, the complexity of care necessitates a level of pharmaceutical oversight—such as sterile compounding and safety management—that may exceed the needs of general practice [12,29].
Limitations
This scoping review has several limitations. First, many included studies relied on cross-sectional surveys with relatively small sample sizes or low response rates, limiting generalizability. Some studies were confined to specific geographic regions or states, potentially failing to capture the full range of practice models within a country. Second, selection bias is possible because respondents may have had a pre-existing interest in or favorable attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration. Third, most evidence was perception-based, relying on surveys and interviews rather than objective clinical outcomes. There remains a notable lack of quantitative research assessing the direct impact of pharmacist involvement on therapeutic outcomes or adverse event reduction in veterinary settings. Finally, our search strategy relied on the aforementioned databases, particularly PubMed and Web of Science. Although Web of Science offers extensive multidisciplinary coverage, including veterinary journals, we did not search CAB Abstracts, which has been shown to have the broadest coverage of veterinary literature [38]. Consequently, it is possible that some relevant articles published in exclusively veterinary or regional agricultural journals were omitted. Future systematic reviews on this topic should incorporate CAB Abstracts to ensure maximum comprehensiveness from the veterinary perspective. Despite these limitations, this review represents the first comprehensive synthesis of the global literature on veterinarian–pharmacist collaboration and provides a critical baseline for understanding this evolving professional relationship.
Future implications
Advancing the pharmacist’s role from an external service provider to an integrated partner in veterinary healthcare requires progress in several areas. First, specialized education is essential. Pharmacy curricula and continuing education programs must more systematically incorporate veterinary-specific physiology, pharmacology, and veterinary healthcare systems to address the knowledge gap that currently undermines trust [10,12]. Furthermore, expanding practical training opportunities—such as veterinary pharmacy residencies, externships, and elective courses—provides essential pathways for pharmacists to integrate successfully into veterinary practice environments [39,40]. Second, sustained interprofessional dialogue is needed. Clarifying mutual expectations and limitations—potentially through interprofessional education initiatives—may reduce professional friction and foster collaborative cultures [23]. Finally, stronger evidence is required. Future research should move beyond perception-based surveys to evaluate measurable clinical, safety, and economic outcomes of pharmacist involvement, including improvements in occupational safety compliance and hospital management efficiency. To facilitate meaningful quantitative research in the future, a phased approach may be beneficial. Given that the presence of pharmacists within veterinary hospitals is currently extremely rare, an important initial step may be the development of veterinarian–pharmacist collaborative community models that connect local clinics with community pharmacies. Concurrently, the establishment of standardized veterinary dispensing guidelines may help promote consistency and species-specific safety in pharmaceutical care. Once these foundational frameworks are in place, they may provide the infrastructure and structured data needed to evaluate the impact of pharmacist involvement on clinical outcomes, such as medication adherence, dispensing errors, owner satisfaction, and measurable physiological outcomes.
Conclusions
Pharmacists are expanding their role in veterinary medicine, evolving from traditional dispensing functions to active contributors to clinical care and medication safety. Although the scope and nature of collaboration vary globally, a persistent barrier remains veterinarians’ concern regarding pharmacists’ limited training in animal physiology. Addressing this gap through specialized veterinary education for pharmacists is a critical step toward establishing interprofessional trust. Strengthening this partnership has the potential to enhance occupational safety and practice efficiency for veterinarians while optimizing therapeutic outcomes for animal patients.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Search strategies for all databases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355233.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Dataset. Minimal data set of the scoping review.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355233.s003
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Jun Kawahara (Amour Co., Ltd., Toyama, Japan) for his valuable insights and support throughout this study. We also thank Edanz (https://jp.edanz.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.
References
- 1. Robinson NJ, Brennan ML, Cobb M, Dean RS. Capturing the complexity of first opinion small animal consultations using direct observation. Vet Rec. 2015;176(2):48. pmid:25262057
- 2. Popiel-Dziewierz S, Noszczyk-Nowak A, Dziewierz A. From bench to bedside and back: translational cardiovascular interventions in veterinary medicine. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2025;21(3):295–304. pmid:41114311
- 3. Pailler S, Hawes SM, Houlihan KE, Hoy-Gerlach J, Sumridge M, McCobb E, et al. The Twenty Highest Priority Questions to Answer to Improve Access to Veterinary Care. JSMCAH. 2025;4(1).
- 4. Hodgson K, Barton L, Darling M, Antao V, Kim FA, Monavvari A. Pets’ Impact on Your Patients’ Health: Leveraging Benefits and Mitigating Risk. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(4):526–34. pmid:26152446
- 5. Taniguchi Y, Seino S, Headey B, Hata T, Ikeuchi T, Abe T, et al. Evidence that dog ownership protects against the onset of disability in an older community-dwelling Japanese population. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263791. pmid:35196354
- 6. Pohl R, Botscharow J, Böckelmann I, Thielmann B. Stress and strain among veterinarians: a scoping review. Ir Vet J. 2022;75(1):15. pmid:35729648
- 7. Chisholm-Burns MA, Kim Lee J, Spivey CA, Slack M, Herrier RN, Hall-Lipsy E, et al. US pharmacists’ effect as team members on patient care: systematic review and meta-analyses. Med Care. 2010;48(10):923–33. pmid:20720510
- 8. Gillani SW, Gulam SM, Thomas D, Gebreighziabher FB, Al-Salloum J, Assadi RA, et al. Role and Services of a Pharmacist in the Prevention of Medication Errors: A Systematic Review. Curr Drug Saf. 2021;16(3):322–8. pmid:33006539
- 9. Wallis J, Fletcher D, Bentley A, Ludders J. Medical Errors Cause Harm in Veterinary Hospitals. Front Vet Sci. 2019 Feb 5;6:12. pmid:30805349
- 10. Konno T, Suzuki H, Suzuki N, Okada K, Nishikawa Y, Kikuchi D, et al. Current Situation for Pharmacists in Japanese Veterinary Medicine: Exploring the Pharmaceutical Needs and Challenges of Veterinary Staff to Facilitate Collaborative Veterinary Care. Pharmacy (Basel). 2024;12(6):179. pmid:39728844
- 11. Hoeft M, Van Hooser J, Rupnow N, Clarkson C. Merging the worlds of pets and pills: development and evaluation of an interprofessional activity linking pharmacy and veterinary medicine. Med Sci Educ. 2024;34(4):765–70. pmid:39099878
- 12. Ceresia ML, Fasser CE, Rush JE, Scheife RT, Orcutt CJ, Michalski DL, et al. The role and education of the veterinary pharmacist. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(1):16. pmid:19513154
- 13. Karriker M, Wiebe V. Pharmacists in veterinary education: bridging the gap. J Vet Med Educ. 2006;33(2):248–52. pmid:16849306
- 14.
JBI. Resources [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 6] Available from: https://jbi.global/scoping-review-network/resources
- 15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 16.
Qatar Computing Research Institute. Rayyan [Internet]. Doha, Qatar: Qatar Computing Research Institute; [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.rayyan.ai/
- 17. Simpson BS. Pychotropic medications in the treatment of feline urine spraying. Int J Pharm Compd. 2007;11(1):44–8. pmid:23974483
- 18. Haywood A, Bolitho R, Gusti K, Yim C, Testa C, Hattingh L. Compounding solutions for exotic and nondomesticated fauna in australia: an investigative study. Int J Pharm Compd. 2009;11(5):440–4. pmid:23966528
- 19. Meadows RL, Muller G. Conservative management of chronic kidney disease in cats: recommendations for veterinarians and compounding pharmacists. Int J Pharm Compd. 2010;14(5):382–94. pmid:23965582
- 20. McDowell A, Assink L, Musgrave R, Soper H, Williams C, Norris P. Comparison of prescribing and dispensing processes between veterinarians and pharmacists in New Zealand: are there opportunities for cooperation?. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2011;9(1):23–30. pmid:25132886
- 21. Gargiulo DA, Chemal C, Joda L, Lee YJ, Pilkington M, Haywood A, et al. Extemporaneous compounding in veterinary practice: a New Zealand perspective. N Z Vet J. 2013;61(6):311–5. pmid:23544952
- 22. Pruitt BN 3rd. Methocarbamol suspension for the treatment of rhabdomyolysis in equines. Int J Pharm Compd. 2013;17(5):384–7. pmid:24459784
- 23. Root Kustritz MV, Molgaard LK, Tegzes JH. Frequency of interactions between veterinarians and other professionals to guide interprofessional education. J Vet Med Educ. 2013;40(4):370–7. pmid:24113723
- 24. Bennett SA, Ruisinger JF, Prohaska ES, Steele KM, Melton BL. Assessing pet owner and veterinarian perceptions of need for veterinary compounding services in a community pharmacy setting. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018;16(3):1224. pmid:30416625
- 25. Fredrickson ME, Terlizzi H, Horne RL, Dannemiller S. The role of the community pharmacist in veterinary patient care: a cross-sectional study of pharmacist and veterinarian viewpoints. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020;18(3):1928. pmid:32831975
- 26. Besley N, Browne P, Park M, Pesheva P, Wong K, Hughes-Medlicott NJ, et al. Pharmacists in zoos? A qualitative study investigating the potential for pharmacist involvement in wildlife health care in Aotearoa, New Zealand. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2023;63(3):825–31. pmid:36740527
- 27. Shimizu R, Shih-Chieh L, Sakurai H. Kampo medicines treatment of pets: The role of pharmacist at a prescription pharmacy in promoting (in Japanese). Pharmacometrices. 2023;104(3–4):61–6.
- 28.
Otsuka T, Asai R. The questionnaire survey on the needs of pharmacists in community hospitals and activity reports at our hospital. In: The 44th Annual Meeting of Japanese Society of Clinical Verterinary Medicine. 2023. p. 4–7.
- 29. Ferreira AA, Freitas AS, Diniz JA, Cunha M de C, Magalhães V de S, Dewulf N de LS, et al. Professional profile in veterinary oncology: A Brazilian nationwide survey. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2025;31(6):983–90. pmid:39106361
- 30. Paneerselvam GS, Lee RW, Farrukh MJ, Alhamda YMA, Alsultan SM, Razi P, et al. Pharmacist and veterinarian collaboration in Klang Valley, Malaysia: A veterinarians’ perception. Heliyon. 2024;10(19):e38423. pmid:39430443
- 31.
Boatright K, Forsythe L. Why—and how—to build relationships with community pharmacists. dvm360 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.dvm360.com/view/why-and-how-to-build-relationships-with-community-pharmacists
- 32.
Larkin M. Board supports dialogue with pharmacies. JAVMA News [Internet]. 2017 Jan 15 [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-01-15/board-supports-dialogue-pharmacies
- 33.
American Veterinary Medical Association. Pharmacy and prescription issues [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-health/pharmacy
- 34. Davidson G. Veterinary compounding: regulation, challenges, and resources. Pharmaceutics. 2017;9(1):5. pmid:28075379
- 35. Dias R, Lourenço AM, São Braz B, Cavaco A. Reaching for veterinary pharmacy services: an overlooked routine by community pharmacists? J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2021;12(3):390–6.
- 36. O’Driscoll NH, Juwah C, Labovitiadi O, Lamb AJ. Veterinary pharmacy within the United Kingdom: review of current practice and education. Pharm Educ. 2014;14(1):26–30.
- 37. Stafford EG. Highlighting the role of veterinary pharmacists in zoonotic diseases including COVID-19. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020;60(6):e84–7. pmid:32703666
- 38. Grindlay DJC, Brennan ML, Dean RS. Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. J Vet Med Educ. 2012;39(4):404–12. pmid:23187034
- 39.
Society of Veterinary Hospital Pharmacists. Veterinary pharmacy residency [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.svhp.org/veterinary-pharmacy-residency
- 40.
Society of Veterinary Hospital Pharmacists. Student APPE & externships [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jun 3]. Available from: https://studentsvhp.wixsite.com/home/appe