The Evolving Role of Pharmacists in Doping Prevention: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT: Doping and inadvertent exposure to prohibited substances are major concerns in sport because of their implications for athlete health, medication safety, and fair competition. The growing use of prescription medications, over-the-counter products, and dietary supplements has complicated anti-doping practice, particularly among athletes who manage their own medications or rely on nonprofessional sources of information. Pharmacists are well positioned to support athletes through medication counseling, supplement evaluation, and anti-doping education; however, their role in anti-doping systems remains incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To explore the evolving role of pharmacists in anti-doping practice by reviewing pharmacist-led interventions related to athlete medication management and identifying barriers to their implementation and utilization. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 2016 onward. STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing pharmacist-led anti-doping interventions, services, or programs related to medication or supplement use among athletes were included. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on intervention type, service delivery, implementation barriers, and reported outcomes were extracted and synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included. Pharmacist-led anti-doping interventions were categorized into 3 areas: (1) anti-doping education, (2) individualized medication and supplement review, and (3) drug information and policy support within sports medicine settings. Pharmacists contributed to identifying prohibited substances, evaluating supplement contamination risks, supporting Therapeutic Use Exemption applications, and counseling athletes. Educational interventions improved athlete knowledge and reduced favorable attitudes toward doping. However, implementation in routine practice remained inconsistent. Doping-related consultations in community pharmacies were infrequent, and simulated-patient studies demonstrated variability in counseling quality. Common barriers included insufficient anti-doping education, lack of confidence, limited access to reliable resources, inadequate multidisciplinary integration, and absence of remuneration for time-intensive consultations. Athletes frequently relied on coaches, peers, or online sources rather than pharmacists for anti-doping information. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists represent an underutilized resource within anti-doping systems. Expanding pharmacist involvement through structured education, reliable resources, and stronger integration into multidisciplinary sports medicine teams may improve medication safety, reduce the risk of inadvertent doping, and strengthen athlete support. Future implementation-focused research is needed to evaluate sustainable models of sports pharmacy practice across elite and community settings.