Integrating Language Instruction into Pharmacy Education: Spanish and Arabic Languages as Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication is key for healthcare providers to provide optimal care for patients. Pharmacists’ fluency in a patient’s native language is important for effective communication. Additionally, language concordance improves patients’ trust and ensures health equity. In the United States (US), Hispanics are the largest minority group, but only 36% of the pharmacy schools in the US offer Spanish courses in their curriculum. Conversely, Middle Eastern countries have implemented English as the language of instruction in pharmacy schools, though the native language of the patient population is Arabic. The discrepancy between the language of education and the language used by patients might lead to communication problems, thus limiting a pharmacist’s role in practice. This review aims to describe the efforts of pharmacy schools both in the US and Middle Eastern countries to incorporate a second language (Spanish and Arabic, respectively) in their curriculum. Spanish language content has scarcely been introduced into the pharmacy curriculum in the US, either as didactic elements (elective courses, lab sessions, modules within a course, or co-curricular programs) or as language immersion experiences (rotations and internships, nationally or abroad). In Arabic-speaking countries, an Arabic course was introduced to the pharmacy curriculum to enhance students’ communication skills. This review provides an overview of the steps taken in various pharmacy programs to prepare students for adequate multilingual speaking. The findings reveal the need for additional strategies to assess the impact of language courses on student performance and patient experience, as well as language competence in pharmacists and pharmacy students.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".