An Exploration of Pharmacist Preceptors' and Pharmacy Students' Experiences at an Interprofessional Student-Run Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examines pharmacist preceptors' and pharmacy students' experiences at an interprofessional student-run clinic: Student Health Initiative for the Needs of Edmonton (SHINE). On Saturday afternoons, students and preceptors from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, social work and nutrition work together to care for adolescents and young adults from Edmonton inner city areas. Methods: Pharmacist preceptors and pharmacy students were invited to participate in open-ended interviews to explore their experiences at the SHINE clinic. Qualitative data analysis techniques were used to identify themes in the transcribed interviews. Results: Three pharmacist preceptors and 3 pharmacy students were interviewed. Three themes arose: dynamic team roles, interprofessional role understanding and personal benefits. Preceptors' and students' interprofessional contributions varied based on the stage of the patient care process. Benefits of the SHINE clinic experience included enhancing preceptor skills, interprofessional relationships and confidence working in teams. Discussion: The optimal model of interprofessional practice varies at the SHINE clinic. The appropriate intensity of collaboration throughout the care process should be explored. Pharmacy students appeared to have greater comfort levels when working in a traditional pharmacy role, but preceptor role models helped to push those boundaries. The SHINE clinic provides a rare community experience through which both preceptors and students can build relationships with other health care professionals and confidence practising in teams. Conclusion: This study helps us better understand the dynamic role and contributions of pharmacy students in an interprofessional student-run clinic. The SHINE clinic provided a beneficial experience, where preceptors and students could learn with, from and about each other while caring for a vulnerable population. The findings provide insight into student-driven interprofessional education and provide guidance for further exploration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".