A comparative systematic review of pharmacist education systems and pharmacy service quality in ASEAN-5: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The global transition toward patient-centered pharmaceutical care has exposed structural disparities in ASEAN pharmacy workforce training and deployment. This review examines four research questions: how pharmacy education systems and accreditation standards differ across Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore (collectively, the ASEAN-5); the extent to which pre-registration education influences clinical service scope and professional confidence; how education reform and regulatory change have shaped pharmacist clinical roles; and what barriers and enablers exist for regional qualification harmonization. METHODS: A systematic literature review following PRISMA 2020 was conducted. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus, supplemented by grey literature, were completed in May 2026. Of 78 unique records screened, 46 studies published between 2005 and 2026 met inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal used an adapted Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; synthesis employed narrative thematic analysis. RESULTS: The five countries represent four structurally distinct pharmacy education architectures: Thailand's standardized six-year Doctor of Pharmacy with dual specialization tracks; four-year Bachelor of Pharmacy programmes in Malaysia and the Philippines with institutional variation; Indonesia's clinically underdeveloped system despite rapid expansion; and Singapore's four-year Bachelor of Pharmacy followed by a nationally mandated one-year pre-registration pathway. Evidence links deeper clinical training to broader practice scope, higher confidence, and improved patient outcomes. Reform produced uneven results: Thailand's PharmD transition improved clinical recognition but exposed deployment paradoxes; Singapore achieved the strongest training-to-practice alignment; Indonesia's health insurance reforms were not absorbed by an underprepared workforce; the Philippines lacks a national competency framework. No binding mutual recognition arrangement was identified; divergent qualification structures, incompatible accreditation systems, and an asymmetric evidence base remain the primary barriers. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that clinical service scope is bounded less by national policy ambition than by the depth and clinical orientation of the pre-registration education that precedes it, and that credentialing reforms which outpace a health system's capacity to absorb new clinical roles, or the reverse, do not by themselves translate into expanded practice. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy education across the ASEAN-5 remains nationally distinct and clinically uneven. Clinical service scope is directly bounded by pre-registration education quality. No country has fully closed the education-practice gap. Regional harmonization requires national-level educational reform as a prerequisite.