Abstract Objectives Delivering efficient and fair pharmacy services depends on embedding principles of equity, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI). The aim of this scoping review is to identify and synthesize what is currently known about EDI of pharmacy services and identify the research gaps in this area. Methods The review followed the York framework by Arksey and O’Malley. Comprehensive searches of Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were conducted from database inception to 15 February 2024, with an updated search on 15 June 2025. Search terms combined EDI and pharmacy concepts in all languages. After duplicate removal, the study reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted from eligible studies and synthesized thematically. Key findings Of 916 records identified, 27 met the inclusion criteria. The studys' findings indicated that community pharmacists were widely perceived as accessible, supportive, and cooperative providers. Nonetheless, patients from diverse backgrounds reported barriers in accessing pharmacy services. Suggested strategies to address this included recruitment of multilingual and diverse pharmacy staff to enhance accessibility. Pharmacists themselves reported difficulties in delivering inclusive services due to insufficient policy and administrative support, particularly regarding facilities, personnel, finances, and other resources required for quality care. Notably, no interventional studies evaluating EDI initiatives in pharmacy practice were identified. Conclusions This review underscores the need to design and evaluate interventions promoting EDI in pharmacy services. Addressing structural barriers and implementing inclusive workforce and policy initiatives may improve patient access, strengthen pharmacy practice, and contribute to reducing health inequities. Study protocol The study protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/ZB2XG). Ethics and dissemination No primary data were collected or analyzed for this review, therefore ethics approval was not required.
Kalsoom et al. (Wed,) studied this question.