Self-Medication Practices for Companion Animals in Japan: A Descriptive Survey of Pet Owners’ Use of Over-the-Counter Drugs and Perspectives on Pharmaceutical Care

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript with a title “Self-Medication Practices for Companion Animals in Japan: A Descriptive Survey of Pet Owners’ Use of Over-the-Counter Drugs and Perspectives on Pharmaceutical Care” is a novel one with interesting conception. I have some questions: 1. Haw Your survey reached the owners- due vets or by advertisement on internet or in other media like TV? 2. What kind of medications were preferred from the owners? Because in different countries there are restrictions for groups of drugs which must be prescribed by veterinarian or human doctor. Please, clarify! 3. Do You have a question/answer what are the most frequent conditions which people try to treat at their homes? Please, clarify! This question is very important because of that many people believe they can treat what ever they want without veterinarian.

Author Response

Reviewer 1：The manuscript with a title “Self-Medication Practices for Companion Animals in Japan: A Descriptive Survey of Pet Owners’ Use of Over-the-Counter Drugs and Perspectives on Pharmaceutical Care” is a novel one with interesting conception.

I have some questions:

 

Response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments have been invaluable in improving the clarity, completeness, and overall quality of the paper. We have carefully addressed each point and revised the manuscript accordingly, with all changes highlighted in red in the revised version.

 

 

Comments 1: 1. Haw Your survey reached the owners- due vets or by advertisement on internet or in other media like TV?

 

Response 1: As described in Section 2.3 (“Study Participants and Data Collection”), the survey was conducted online using a pre-registered monitor panel managed by Cross Marketing Inc. (Tokyo, Japan). Invitations were distributed electronically to eligible panel members, no advertisements were made through veterinarians, TV, or other media (p3 L102–L104)

 

 

Comments 2: 2. What kind of medications were preferred from the owners? Because in different countries there are restrictions for groups of drugs which must be prescribed by veterinarian or human doctor. Please, clarify!

 

Response 2: We have added a clarification in Section 3.4 that owners mainly used OTC medications, such as flea and tick preventives, which are available without veterinary prescriptions in Japan (p5 L143–L145).

 

 

Comments 3: 3. Do You have a question/answer what are the most frequent conditions which people try to treat at their homes? Please, clarify! This question is very important because of that many people believe they can treat whatever they want without veterinarian.

 

Response 3: Response: We have now added a brief explanation in Section 3.4 and Discussion, indicating that the most common self-treated conditions included preventive care (e.g., use of topical medication to eliminate fleas and ticks). These conditions were inferred from open-ended responses (p5 L143–L145).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is timely and important to contribute to the global picture of pharmacist involvement of pet animal care. The topic seems appropriate for this journal.

The manuscript is very well written - clear and succinct.

Methods

Why was the data collected over the short period of 4 days? And why was the number of respondents capped at 500?

Please provide more clarity about the source of participants. I am unsure what is meant by the phrase "a panel of registered monitors".

Results

What were the "other" responses to the question about consultation with pharmacists (Fig. 1a)?

Fig. 3(e). What is the distinction between 'drugstore' and 'pharmacies'?

Discussion

The statement is made that "Owner demand clearly exceeds current access" and the data cited to support this claim is that a small number of owners have consulted pharmacists. Whilst I agree that vet pharmacies and pharmacists with knowledge of vet prescriptions are limited, I do not think that the evidence provided supports the statement made. Please revise.

I would also caution the generalisability of the data collected. There were 500 respondents to the survey and this is a small portion of the population in Japan.

The authors should articulate why there should be better links between vets and pharmacists.

Line 177. "Our findings...." and then a reference is cited. Please distinguish between the findings of the current study and previously published work.

Line 184. The section about curricula and skill development is an important one and should be in a separate paragraph. I also encourage the authors to look at the work of Gigi Davidson who is a world-leader in veterinary pharmacy. 

Further comparisons should be made to other published literature and to frame this study as being similar to or different from other countries. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2：The topic of the manuscript is timely and important to contribute to the global picture of pharmacist involvement of pet animal care. The topic seems appropriate for this journal. The manuscript is very well written - clear and succinct.

 

Response: We are deeply grateful to Reviewer 2 for the detailed and expert review of our manuscript. Your valuable suggestions have greatly contributed to strengthening the discussion, enhancing methodological clarity, and improving the international context of the study. All comments have been carefully addressed, and corresponding revisions have been incorporated throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Comments 1: Methods

Why was the data collected over the short period of 4 days? And why was the number of respondents capped at 500? Please provide more clarity about the source of participants. I am unsure what is meant by the phrase "a panel of registered monitors".

 

Response 1: The target number of respondents (500) was calculated to ensure representativeness based on population estimates. According to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, there were approximately 5.57 million households in Japan in FY2024, of which 21% were estimated to own pets—equivalent to about 1.16 million pet-owning households. Using a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the minimum required sample size was calculated as 385; therefore, the target sample size was set at 500 to increase precision. The collection period was based on the survey company's standard period, and it took four days to achieve the required sample size.

The term “panel of registered monitors” refers to individuals pre-registered with Cross Marketing Inc. (Tokyo, Japan), a professional research company. These monitors voluntarily participate in web-based surveys and are stratified by demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, and region) to enhance national representativeness. We have clarified this explanation in Section 2.3 of the revised manuscript (p3 L96–L101, L109–L110).

 

 

Comments 2: Results

What were the "other" responses to the question about consultation with pharmacists (Fig. 1a)?

 

Response 2: The “other” category included responses such as “I do not know until the situation arises,” “I have no need to consult because I am a pharmacist myself,” and similar comments. This clarification has been added to the Results section (Section 3.2) (p4 L120–L121).

 

 

Comments 3: Fig. 3(e). What is the distinction between 'drugstore' and 'pharmacies'?

 

Response 3: We have clarified the distinction in the legend of Figure 3(e). In Japan, “pharmacies” refer to licensed healthcare facilities where pharmacists dispense prescription medicines and provide counseling, whereas “drugstores” are large retail outlets selling over-the-counter medicines, cosmetics, and daily goods, where pharmacist consultation is not always be available. This clarification has been added to the figure legend in the revised manuscript (p6 L160–L162).

 

 

Comments 4: Discussion

The statement is made that "Owner demand clearly exceeds current access" and the data cited to support this claim is that a small number of owners have consulted pharmacists. Whilst I agree that vet pharmacies and pharmacists with knowledge of vet prescriptions are limited, I do not think that the evidence provided supports the statement made. Please revise.

 

Response 4: We appreciate this feedback. The sentence has been revised to read: “The findings suggest a possible gap between owners’ demand and current access to pharmacist consultations.” (p7 L175–L176).

 

 

Comments 5: I would also caution the generalisability of the data collected. There were 500 respondents to the survey and this is a small portion of the population in Japan. The authors should articulate why there should be better links between vets and pharmacists.

 

Response 5: We have expanded the limitations section. We emphasized that stronger pharmacist–veterinarian collaboration is needed to ensure safe medication use, particularly given limited owner knowledge and access to expert advice (p8 L239–L243).

 

 

Comments 6: Line 177. "Our findings...." and then a reference is cited. Please distinguish between the findings of the current study and previously published work.

 

Response 6: We have revised the sentence to clearly distinguish between our results and previous research (p7 L190–L192).

 

 

Comments 7: Line 184. The section about curricula and skill development is an important one and should be in a separate paragraph. I also encourage the authors to look at the work of Gigi Davidson who is a world-leader in veterinary pharmacy.

 

Response 7: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have divided this section into a new paragraph and cited Gigi Davidson’s relevant work to strengthen the context of veterinary pharmacy education (p7 L207–L213).

 

 

Comments 8: Further comparisons should be made to other published literature and to frame this study as being similar to or different from other countries. 

 

Response 8: We have added a comparative discussion referencing studies from the United States and Europe, highlighting differences in pharmacist involvement and access to OTC veterinary products (p7 L196–L206).