902 (values for other sections of the questionnaire are published elsewhere[11]). Fisher’s exact test indicated a significant difference (P = 0.013) between pharmacists’ professional practice area and their support for additional training (categorical

variable where pharmacists answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’). In this regard, consultant pharmacists, who generally supported additional training to assume further prescribing roles, indicated weaker levels of support compared to hospital, community and pharmacists working in other settings. In terms of therapeutic topics (i.e. continuous variables measuring respondents attitudes on a five-point Likert scale), one-way ANOVA analysis indicated that selection of drug regimen was the only topic where a significant difference Selleck Lapatinib was found between pharmacists coming from different professional areas of practice (P = 0.005). On this topic, Compound C in vitro consultant pharmacists (mean score (SD) = 2.9 (1.6)) indicated that they needed less training compared to hospital (4.1 (1.0)) and community pharmacists (3.9 (1.1)). Fisher’s exact test indicated no significant difference in respondents’ support for additional training needed if further prescribing roles were assumed (i.e. categorical variable where pharmacists answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’) in relation to pharmacists’ years

of registration (P = 0.284). One-way ANOVA indicated significant differences between pharmacists registered for >20 years in comparison to those registered for <20 years in terms of their level of agreement for several

training topics preferred. Differences were also found between pharmacists registered for 6–10 years and those registered for 11–20 years. Table 2 for shows specific training topics where Tukey’s post-hoc comparison identified significant differences in means between the groups. No difference was found between respondents’ preference for IPO, SPO or IP/SP and pharmacists’ years of registration (P = 0.788) and professional practice area (P = 0.567). Fisher’s exact test indicated no significant difference in respondents’ support for additional training needed (i.e. categorical variable where pharmacists answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’) if further prescribing roles were assumed regardless of their support for the IPO, SPO or IP/SP prescribing models (P = 0.620). Frequency distributions suggested that attitudes towards training requirements of respondents who supported SPO and those who supported IP/SP were similar. However, differences were identified between supporters of IPO versus SPO and IP/SP. Tukey’s post-hoc comparison found that IPO supporters had significantly weaker levels of support for key topics such as pathophysiology of conditions, principles of diagnosis and patient assessment and monitoring (P = 0.001). A significant difference in attitudes was also found in the topic regarding the psychology of prescribing (P = 0.013). These results are provided in Table 1.