An Assessment of Demand for a Combined PharmD–MBA Program at the University of Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Combined MBA programs are becoming increasingly popular, and it is anticipated that there will be 60 combined pharmacy–MBA programs across North America in 2015. We aimed to see if there would be support for a combined PharmD–MBA program at the University of Saskatchewan. (2) Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year pharmacy students at the University of Saskatchewan. A separate questionnaire was developed and all practicing pharmacists in Saskatchewan were emailed a link to SurveyMonkey® (Palo Alto, CA, USA) to fill it out online. In-person and phone interviews were conducted with pharmacy stakeholders in Saskatchewan and across the country. (3) Results: Of the 265 students, 193 (72.8%) were present on the days the questionnaires were distributed, and they all completed the questionnaires. When asked if they would have pursued a combined degree if the U of S had offered it when they entered the pharmacy program, 16.6% (32/193) and 37.3% (72/193) either strongly agreed or agreed and 29.0% (56/193) were unsure. When pharmacists were asked if an MBA would be valuable or applicable in their current job, 42.2% (128/303) agreed and 13.9% (42/303) strongly agreed. When asked if they felt students graduating with a combined degree would be at an advantage for certain job opportunities upon graduation, 33.6% (100/298) strongly agreed and 55.4% (165/298) agreed. A total of 8 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from across Canada. Of these 8 stakeholders, only 2 were aware that other combined programs were offered. All of the stakeholders were in favour of the idea of a combined degree. Some felt it was important for the program to have a clear value proposition and healthcare related content would be desirable. (4) Conclusions: Overall, pharmacist, pharmacy student, and stakeholder input indicate that a combined program could be supported at the University of Saskatchewan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".