Oncology boot camp: A preparatory curriculum for advanced pharmacy practice experience students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an autonomous oncology boot camp on Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) student knowledge. Secondary objectives included assessing student perception of the virtual learning experience and overall comfort level with the material. METHODS: APPE students rotating through our institution between November 2019 and March 2020 were voluntarily enrolled in a 4-hour oncology-focused boot camp, which included five PlayPosit (Denver, CO, USA) interactive video lectures embedded with case-based application questions followed by one comprehensive web-based Quandary (Victoria, BC, Canada) action-maze case. Student learning was measured by a pre- and post-intervention exam. A web survey tool (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) collected student perceptions evaluating their comfort with oncology-specific drug knowledge and APPE rotations tasks. RESULTS: Fifty students enrolled in the oncology boot camp, with 100% completing the pre- and post-intervention assessments. Overall, pre-intervention exam scores (mean: 55.4%, SD: 21.8%) improved by 23.2% following the boot camp (mean: 78.6%, SD: 19.2%; p < 0.001). Students performed better on all 10 exam questions, with 6 questions showing a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05). Forty-five students (90%) completed the perception surveys. Of those, 93% agreed that it effectively reinforced important oncology knowledge, 91% supported the autonomous design, and 82% would recommend the oncology boot camp for future students. CONCLUSION: The boot camp proved to be a beneficial educational tool that enhanced student knowledge and confidence in navigating common oncology concepts. Students valued the ability to independently complete the activities and supported its continuation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".