Public health qualifications, motivation, and experience of pharmacy professionals: exploratory cross-sectional surveys of pharmacy and public health professionals.

Background: Pharmacy professionals (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians; PPs) are recognised for delivering public health interventions (micro level). There is increased policy focus on population health management, but limited knowledge regarding the role of PPs within UK's public health meso and macro levels. This study aimed to explore UK PPs' public health qualifications, specialisations, and motivations and barriers to pursuing advanced public health practice.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we developed and piloted two surveys, and we disseminated them separately via email to UK pharmacy and public health networks and social media, between June 19, and Oct 26, 2021. PPs with an interest or experience in public or population health were invited to participate in the study. We asked PPs questions about public health qualifications, specialisations, motivations, and barriers, and we also asked PHPs for opinions regarding the value of specialist public health skills for PPs. Numerical data were summarised, and responses collated into themes. NHS Health Research Authority tool identified ethics approval not required; and the questionnaire included consent request.

Findings: 128 PPs (85% pharmacists) and 54 PHPs responded. Of the PPs who responded, 90 (70%) were female and 35 (27%) were male; 62 (48%) were White British, 19 (14%) were Asian or Asian British, 14 (12%) were Black or Black British. They worked in primary care (34%, n=43), secondary care (26%, n=33), Community Pharmacy (13%, n=16), and public health bodies (13%, n=16). Overall, 34 (27%) of 128 PPs (32 pharmacists; 2 pharmacy technicians) possessed public health qualifications (MPH, PhD). Motivations for these qualifications were ambition to work as PP in public health PP (31%; 17/55 respondents), public health as alternative career (29%; 16/55), general interest (27%; 15/55) recommended or required for current role (11%; 6/55). Themes of barriers included limited training opportunities and poor career pathways. For the PHP survey, 36 (67%) of 54 were female and 16 (30%) were male. They worked as Consultants or Directors (28%, n=15), Registrars (24%, n=13), Practitioners (15%, n=8). 45 (87%) of 52 PHP respondents agreed that specialist PPs in public health would be beneficial to public health; 13 (45%) of 29 respondents recommended a public health Master's degree, eight (27%) recommended experience or postgraduate modules in health economics and health inequalities, three (10%) recommended credentialing for PPs to specialise.

Interpretation: Findings suggest responding PPs are motivated to advance in public health practice, despite barriers. Collaboration with PHPs and development of communities of practice might address barriers identified and contribute to advanced public health practice for PPs, supporting the increased focus on population health management in the UK. Limitations include the exploratory nature of the study, and the fact that PPs responding to public health surveys might be more motivated to advance in public health practice than those not responding.

Funding: NHS England and UK Health Security Agency.