Pharmacist and pharmacy student perceptions of a competency-based national licensing exam for entry to pharmacy practice in Qatar: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The College of Pharmacy at Qatar University partnered with the Qatar Supreme Council of Health to pilot a competency-based final cumulative assessment as a model for subsequent national licensing exams. The objective of this study was to explore perceptions of pharmacy stakeholders on a national licensing exam. Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken in Qatar using three focus groups; two with pharmacists (N = 3 and 8) and one with graduating pharmacy students (N=5). Focus groups were facilitated using a topic guide developed by study investigators. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Results were analysed using framework analysis. Results: Four major themes were identified: i) Perception of current licensing process, ii) exam impact on stakeholder perception of pharmacists, iii) perceived implementation barriers, and iv) facilitators of successful implementation. Conclusion: Participants identified the importance of a competency-based exam. Barriers were identified that must be addressed to facilitate successful implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".