ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Pharmacy Practice: Perspectives of Regulators in Canada and the United States.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distilling AI Workforce-Readiness Competencies for U.S. Pharmacists from Job Advertisements: Implications for Pharmacy Education.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Risks to Patients Associated with Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Pharmacy Practice: A Scoping Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Future pharmacists in the age of Artificial Intelligence: a mixed-methods study of first-year students in Vietnam.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is proliferating in society and in pharmacy practice. For some, this represents a great advancement that will enhance effectiveness and efficiency of health care. For others, it is an existential risk that will worsen inequalities, lead to deskilling of the workforce, and spiral beyond the comprehension or control of humans. Human-in-the-loop (HiL) vs. human-out-of-the loop (HoL) AI have different potential risks and challenges that raise questions regarding patient safety. Defining principles for responsible adoption of AI in pharmacy practice will be an important safeguard for both patients and the profession.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with 12 pharmacy regulators from across Canada and the United States were undertaken, with informed consent. Constant comparative data analysis using nVivo v15 was used to identify common themes. The COREQ framework was applied to assure quality of research processes used.
resultsPharmacy regulators highlighted the value of a principles-based, rather than rules-based, approach to AI. Core principles related to transparency, redundancy, audit and feedback, quality assurance, privacy/data security, alignment with codes of ethics, and interoperability were identified. There was limited consensus on the role of consent and choice as principles to be considered.
conclusionsThe role of regulation in shaping responsible adoption of AI in pharmacy will be significant. This study highlighted a series of agreed-upon principles but also identified lack of consensus with respect to how consent and choice could be operationalized in pharmacy practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.