Factors Influencing Professional Identity Construction in Fourth-Year Pharmacy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Objectives.</b> To explore the key factors that influence professional identity construction in fourth-year pharmacy students enrolled in a Doctor of Pharmacy program. <b>Methods.</b> A single-site instrumental case study of current fourth-year pharmacy students from the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, was used. Thirteen students participated in semistructured interviews. Poststructural social identity theories were used to analyze the data and identify themes that influence identity construction in pharmacy students. <b>Results.</b> Data analysis identified five overarching themes that influence pharmacy student professional identity construction: path to pharmacy, curriculum, environment, preceptors, and patient interactions. The Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy curriculum prioritized the health care provider identity, which influenced the students desire to “become” clinicians. Based on their internalized health care provider identity, they rejected preceptors and practice environments that negatively impacted their ability to embody this identity. <b>Conclusion.</b> The findings of this study suggest that pharmacy students align themselves strongly with health care provider identities at the cost of other potentially relevant identities. Pharmacy education programs may benefit from curricular reforms that incorporate and legitimize multiple pharmacist identities to ensure a strong pharmacy workforce for the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".