(1) Background: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate current and potential roles for pharmacists in sports medicine and to identify key themes in outcomes reported in studies. (2) Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2019. Peer-reviewed, original research articles were considered for inclusion. Articles published in a language other than English were excluded. Quality appraisal was performed independently by two authors. (3) Results: Findings of 11 eligible articles (10 observational and 1 experimental study design) were grouped into three themes: (i) doping prevention and control, (ii) injury management and first aid, and (iii) educational and curricular needs. Pharmacists were perceived as a good potential source of information about doping and are enthusiastic about counseling athletes, but lack knowledge and confidence in this area. While pharmacists were frequently consulted for advice on managing sprains and strains, their advice was not always guided by current evidence. Pharmacists and pharmacy students recalled limited opportunity for education in sports pharmacy. (4) Conclusion: Pharmacists showed a willingness and an aptitude to counsel athletes. However, lack of knowledge and confidence, and limited educational opportunities, were key barriers. More research is necessary to support pharmacists in this role.

Sport and exercise medicine (SEM) is a multidisciplinary field that integrates expertise from various healthcare professionals to optimise athletic performance and promote physical activity for chronic disease prevention and management. Australian pharmacists are well-positioned to contribute to SEM, yet their roles remain undefined beyond niche areas like anti-doping. Interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with physiotherapists, is also underexplored. This study investigates pharmacists' engagement in SEM and pharmacist-physiotherapist collaboration, using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to explore behavioural components. A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 14 Australian pharmacists practicing across diverse settings. Data were thematically analysed and mapped to the COM-B framework. Five key themes emerged: (1) Broad scope of pharmacy practice in SEM incorporating both pharmacological and non-pharmacological advice; (2) Opportunities and challenges in inter-professional collaboration, constrained by informal referral pathways and limited interdisciplinary communication (3) Gaps in SEM-related training and education, with pharmacists expressing interest in targeted professional development; (4) Perceived barriers to engagement, including time constraints, remuneration issues and lack of professional recognition; and (5) Future opportunities for pharmacists in SEM, such as integration into multidisciplinary SEM teams and supporting physiotherapist prescribing. Pharmacists are well-placed to play a broader role in SEM but face systemic and educational barriers. Enhancing training, establishing formal referral and interdisciplinary communication pathways and addressing structural challenges could improve engagement. This study lays the groundwork for future interventions to enhance pharmacists' contributions to SEM and strengthen pharmacist-physiotherapist collaboration, ultimately improving consumer care and health outcomes.

Pharmacists are accessible, trusted healthcare professionals who are well-positioned to contribute to Sport and Exercise Medicine (SEM), yet their roles remain underutilised. Previous research using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM—B) model identified behavioural barriers and enablers influencing pharmacists' engagement in SEM and collaboration with physiotherapists. To design a theory-informed intervention toolkit to enhance pharmacists' engagement in SEM and support pharmacist–physiotherapist collaboration, using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework. A structured, three-stage intervention mapping approach guided by the BCW was used. This included: (i) understanding behaviour and identifying influencing factors using COM-B analysis; (ii) identifying appropriate intervention functions and supporting policy categories; and (iii) selecting Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) and preferred modes of delivery based on the APEASE criteria. Pharmacists' engagement in SEM is influenced by multiple barriers, including unclear role definitions, limited training and systemic constraints such as time and remuneration. Key enablers include pharmacists' medicines expertise, accessibility and motivation to collaborate. Six intervention functions and five policy categories were identified as suitable. Fifteen BCTs (e.g., goal setting, social support, prompts/cues) were selected to inform intervention content and delivery strategies, with various modes of delivery proposed. The BCW framework provided a structured method for developing an intervention toolkit aimed at enhancing pharmacists' engagement in SEM and collaboration with physiotherapists. The resulting strategies address key behavioural determinants and offer a foundation for future implementation. However, as the study focused on intervention design rather than implementation, further research is needed to assess the feasibility and real-world impact of the proposed strategies.