Exploring First Nations’ and Cultural Safety Content of Pharmacy Curricula With Academics in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore academics' views on Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Health and Cultural Safety content in pharmacy school curricula to inform recommendations for future curricula. METHODS: All 18 Australian pharmacy schools were contacted, and interviews were conducted with consenting heads of school and/or their delegate(s). The interviews covered what the school was doing with respect to the First Nations theme in the revised accreditation standards and further ideas for improvement. Audio recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim via an online transcription service. Transcripts were thematically analyzed and coded according to the framework approach and mapped to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Curriculum Framework. Coding was facilitated using NVivo software. RESULTS: All 18 schools consented to participate and a total of 22 interviews were conducted. The pharmacy accreditation standards were well known to most educators, however, the dissemination of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Curriculum Framework, introduced in 2014, appeared to be poor. Many interviewees (n = 14) expressed that the current content regarding Aboriginal health and cultural safety/competence was lacking and cited barriers that have led to a lack of development such as a lack of First Nations staff and expertize. CONCLUSION: While cultural safety/competency was taught in all Australian pharmacy schools, it is apparent that pharmacy schools are at various stages in their development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health curriculum design and implementation. Future resources should be developed and made available.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".