Web-based survey assesses pharmacist consultation needs in cancer patients, indicating distinct roles for hospital and community pharmacists.
Patients diagnosed with metastatic or recurrent cancer experience uncertainty and distress; however, their consultation needs remain insufficiently quantified. We conducted a web survey in Japan (January 23–29, 2025) among adults (≥18 years) with a history of metastatic or recurrent cancer (n=522). Participants selected concerns from 21 items across four domains, and for each endorsed concern, they indicated whether they wished to consult hospital and/or community pharmacists; consultation intention was calculated among those endorsing each item. Hospital–community differences were evaluated using McNemar’s test or Mid-P exact test using a significance threshold of p<0.001. The mean age was 58.9±12.9 years; cancers were colorectal (22.2%), breast (18.2%), lung (11.9%), and gastric (11.1%). 88.7% reported at least one concern. The most common concerns were treatment-related side effects (51.0%), anticancer drug mechanism/efficacy (46.9%), treatment costs (42.1%), mental distress (35.1%), and medications used to alleviate cancer- or treatment-related physical discomfort (34.7%). Consultation intention was higher for hospital than community pharmacists for issues including side effects (43.2 vs. 16.2%), mechanism/efficacy (42.9 vs. 18.0%), and symptom-relief medications (48.6 vs. 24.9%). Although concerns regarding medications other than cancer treatment were uncommon (<10% each), consultation intention exceeded 40% when present. These findings indicate that patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer may perceive different consultation roles for hospital and community pharmacists, particularly according to the type of concern. Because these results are based on self-reported consultation intentions rather than actual consultation behavior, they should be regarded as hypothesis-generating and as a basis for future studies on coordinated pharmacist support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watanabe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: