Preceptors' Need For Support In Tutoring Pharmacy Students in Finnish Community Pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pharmacy degree in Finland includes a six-month obligatory internship. The internship is integrated with theoretical studies and adds up to 30 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits of the BSc (Pharm) degree. Learning is supported by reflective assignments from the university. The preceptors have an important role in organizing the internship and tutoring students successfully in community pharmacy settings. Objective: to assess whether the preceptors of University of Helsinki’s teaching pharmacies need pedagogic support in tutoring and if so, in which core pharmaceutical tasks or tutoring skills. Methods: The survey was sent to all preceptors of University of Helsinki´s teaching pharmacies (n=326) in 2011 (response rate 58%, n=190). The data was analyzed statistically using Excel (version 12.3.6). The open-ended questions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Results: The majority of preceptors found their skills in tutoring the students mainly good. However, assessment of learning (27% of the respondents), giving feedback (23%) and organizing the learning situations supportive for learning (23%) were the areas in which the preceptors mostly indicated a need for support. Teaching current care guidelines and pharmaceutical care (36%) and multi-professional collaboration (28%) were the areas in which the preceptors expressed that they needed to update their skills. Conclusions: The faculty should focus the support on the pedagogic skills of preceptors, particularly in improving their skills in assessment of learning and in reflective dialogue. In addition, their skills in teaching clinical and patient care aspects of pharmacy practice should be enhanced. Conflict of Interest We declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests that the authors or members of their immediate families have in any product or service discussed in the manuscript, including grants (pending or received), employment, gifts, stock holdings or options, honoraria, consultancies, expert testimony, patents and royalties Type: Original Research
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".