Educational needs of oncology pharmacists: A survey by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) is committed to providing educational resources to members for their continuous learning and professional development. This survey was conducted to explore the educational needs of International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners members for the purpose of developing resources to support future learning relevant to the diverse global pharmacy practitioner membership of our society. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners membership was conducted between 10 December 2018 and 15 January 2019. The survey contained 17 questions and consisted of four sections: (1) respondents' demographics, (2) common challenges/barriers faced by members in accessing oncology pharmacy education, (3) areas within oncology pharmacy where members need education and (4) preferred methods of education delivery. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize survey results. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 62 out of 363 International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners members (17% response rate). Respondents were from 19 different countries, representing all the habitable continents. Most respondents were practicing in North America (21%), Oceania (21%) and Asia (16%). The majority of respondents worked in inpatient cancer units (60%), ambulatory tertiary cancer centres (31%) and academia (26%). Reported barriers to accessing education relevant to oncology pharmacy practice included lack of financial support (44%), time spent travelling to attend educational activities (39%), limited learning opportunities in their country of practice (34%) and limited growth of the oncology pharmacy discipline in their country of practice (32%). The content areas of greatest demand included pharmacotherapy of various cancers followed by oncology pharmacy research, International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners oncology pharmacy practice standards, supportive care and medication safety. Among educational activities offered by International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, respondents valued annual International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners symposia and Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice the most. Most respondents (87%) indicated webinars as an effective educational tool. CONCLUSION: Among an international oncology pharmacist cohort, we identified practice areas prioritized by pharmacists for continuing and professional development. Time and cost were common barriers to education, both in developing and developed countries. These survey findings may help to guide future education initiatives of International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and other providers of pharmacist oncology education.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".