Pharmacy Students Practicing Health Advocate Competency Roles in Workplace-Based Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health advocacy competency roles are found in the educational outcomes of many health disciplines, yet their development is neglected in the professional curriculum and clinical learning environment. We explored how pharmacy students conceptualize health advocacy through their practice in workplace-based learning and any feedback they receive. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diary study of Canadian pharmacy students completing Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences in hospital and community practices in their graduating year. At pre-determined intervals, 25 students recorded workplace-based activities they recognized as health advocacy and any feedback they received from supervisors, patients, or other staff. Written diary data from 180 records were analyzed by 5 researchers according to inductive content analysis steps and principles. RESULTS: Pharmacy student records reflecting health advocacy roles were organized into 5 categories including, (1) disease prevention; (2) health promotion; (3) seamless care; (4) usual pharmacist care; and (5) professional advocacy. Although many activities were consistent with current competency role descriptions, they do not reflect educational outcomes associated with patient- or systems-level support necessary to address socio-political determinants of health. Although Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience in training evaluation reports included scores for items related to health advocacy competency, few students confirmed receiving specific written or verbal feedback. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students construct health advocacy roles in workplace-based training through biomedical-oriented practices with little direct input offered by supervisors. Pharmacy educational outcomes require contemporary updates to health advocacy competency descriptions which offer examples for practical enactment at system-level and recommendations for feedback and assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".