OHP-027 Literature about the role and the impact of pharmacists: perceptions of pharmacy students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The limited exposure of pharmacy students to evidence of the role and impact of pharmacists does not contribute to encouraging the prospective evaluation and participation of pharmacy students in such research. Purpose The main objective was to assess the exposure of pharmacy students to the literature on the role and impact of pharmacists. The secondary objective was to assess their opinion of the website Impact-Pharmacie, an international platform for such evidence. Material and methods We developed a questionnaire of 29 questions designed to explore students’ exposure to the literature on the role and impact of pharmacists. Students’ opinions of the website Impact-Pharmacie were assessed with a scale from 1 to 10. We used an Annual Meeting of the International Pharmaceutical Students’ Federation, held in Portugal 2014–08–05, to introduce a cohort of pharmacy students to the literature on the role and impact of pharmacists during a workshop. The website Impact-Pharmacie served as support for the presentation. We administered the questionnaire on a voluntary basis; descriptive statistics were performed. Results Thirty students participated in the survey (57% of participants). Respondents were from 15 different countries: Armenia, Austria, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom. Concerning exposure, 40% (12/30) of students had never read articles describing the role and impact of pharmacists, 43% (13/30) of students had read between 1 and 5 articles. Pharmacy students were in favour of using the best evidence on pharmacy practice models. Respondents considered the website Impact-Pharmacie to be clear (average score of 6.6), relevant (6.8) and applicable (5.9) for use in pharmacy curriculums. Conclusion Pharmacy students have limited exposure to the literature on the role and impact of the pharmacist. Students’ found the website Impact-Pharmacie useful as a portal for this literature. Reference Guérin A, et al. Website on the impact of pharmacists. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2014;21:192 No conflict of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".