Scoping the impact of curriculum and placement on the rural pharmacy workforce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to scope the impact of university rural curriculum and rural clinical placements on students' intentions to practise rurally and rural pharmacists' choice of rural practice. DESIGN: The scoping review used Arskey and O'Malley's methodological framework, searching the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Informit and Scopus. This scoping review followed PRISMA for article reporting. SETTING: Studies were selected from those conducted in Australia, USA, Canada and Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy undergraduate students, interns, registered and academic pharmacists were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The pharmacy curriculum at universities and placements undertaken, specifically in rural and remote settings, were evaluated to determine their influence on intention to practise as a rural pharmacist. RESULTS: The search strategy generated 294 records, 31 of which were included in the scoping review. Key findings were mapped to two domains, which broadly included the impact of rural placements and curriculum on intention to practise rurally. Some universities have attempted to introduce a rural curriculum, but reported resources as a barrier and the lack of resulting evidence of students' intention to practise rurally. Although results indicate rural placements have had a positive influence on students' intention to work rurally, this intention has been measured immediately after exposure to rural practice and might not reflect future intentions. CONCLUSION: This review highlights significant gaps in the impact particularly of a rural curriculum and rural clinical placements in relation to the current rural pharmacist workforce. A greater understanding of this topic may guide recommendations for future strategies to address rural pharmacy workforce maldistribution.
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 | 0.028 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".