Relational professional identity: How do pharmacy students see themselves in relation to others?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the pharmacy profession moves towards patient-centred care, pharmacy schools have updated their curricula to prepare students for a full scope of practice. A critical objective of the new curricula is the professional socialization of pharmacy students into relational aspects of the profession: how pharmacists should interact with patients and other health care professionals. Through an examination of how one cohort of pharmacy students perceives its relationship to patients and physicians, this study aims to determine how these relational aspects of professional identity evolve with time spent in the program. Methods: At 3 time points over a 2-year period, pharmacy students were asked to detail in writing how they would communicate with a physician concerning a hypothetical drug allergy scenario. A directed content analysis of their responses was conducted based on 3 main analytic categories: patient-centredness, physician collaboration and physician deference. These categories were further divided into 6 subcategories that were used as the variables for analysis. Statistical analyses examined longitudinal group trends for these variables. Results: Over the 2 years of observation, an examination of the proportion of messages demonstrating the subcategories of interest showed that the only measure of the pharmacy students’ relational professional identity that changed significantly over time occurred for the perception of a sense of shared care for the patient. All other aspects of their relational identity were stagnant and did not change as they progressed through training (χ 2 ; 12.772, df = 2, p < 0.002). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the relational professional identity of participants was poorly developed with regards to both patients and physicians. Pharmacy educators must reexamine the methods currently being employed to foster students’ professional identity development to ensure that new graduates are prepared to meet the challenges of a changing scope of practice. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".