Cross-sectional survey uncovers drivers and barriers of industry collaboration among pharmacy faculty, highlighting demographic and regional disparities in institutional engagement.
Objectives This nationwide study evaluated attitudes, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers to university–industry collaboration among faculty members in pharmacy schools in Türkiye and examined whether these perceptions differed by personal, professional, disciplinary, and regional characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire was emailed to all 1,723 faculty members working in pharmacy schools in Türkiye. The questionnaire assessed attitudes, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers related to university–industry collaboration. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the measurement structure. Structural equation modeling examined associations among the constructs, while independent-samples t tests and analysis of variance were used for group comparisons. Results A total of 319 valid responses were received, corresponding to a response rate of 18.5%. More positive attitudes toward university–industry collaboration were associated with greater perceived benefits (β = 0.742, p <.001) and lower perceived barriers (β = −0.418, p=.002). Women reported higher scores for industry-oriented education and perceived benefits, whereas men reported higher scores for current problems. Perceptions also differed according to academic rank, professional seniority, academic specialization, and geographic region. Conclusions Faculty members working in pharmacy schools generally recognized the educational and institutional benefits of university–industry collaboration, although substantial perceived barriers remained. Clearer institutional procedures, support for junior faculty members, and regionally inclusive collaboration mechanisms may strengthen academic–industry engagement in pharmacy education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ÇALIKUŞU et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: