From global standards to local realities: Understanding the Granada Statements in pharmacy practice research

The Granada Statements were developed to improve the quality and visibility of pharmacy practice research by encouraging consistency in reporting. However, little is known about how these guidelines are interpreted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where professional roles and services may differ. Examining these perspectives can highlight both barriers and opportunities for wider uptake.

This study explored how clinical and social pharmacy researchers perceive the Granada Statements, focusing on the challenges, enablers, and strategies that could enhance their application in resource-limited contexts.

A qualitative design was adopted, using focus group discussions with researchers in Türkiye. Data were thematically analyzed through collaborative coding and interpretation. Special attention was given to the Statements' key areas, including terminology, journal selection, perceptions of relevance, and proposed improvements.

Participants regarded the Statements as a useful framework for clarifying expectations, promoting consistency, and stimulating dialogue about research quality. Barriers included difficulties applying standardized terminology in evolving service contexts, challenges in translating technical terms, undervaluation of LMIC research, financial constraints in open access publishing, and discouraging peer review experiences. Suggested enablers included templates, illustrative examples, modular adoption, culturally sensitive glossaries, and training with editors. A global classification framework for benchmarking pharmacy practice was also proposed.

This study shows that the Granada Statements have the potential to act not only as reporting guidance but also as a framework for more intentional, theory-driven, and globally relevant pharmacy practice research. Flexibility, contextual sensitivity, and institutional support are key to achieving this vision.