Geriatric education for pharmacy students: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication management for older adults requires specific knowledge and skills. Therefore, pharmacy curricula should include appropriate strategies to prepare students for care of this population. This scoping review aimed to identify how geriatric concepts, such as geriatric topics and competencies, are included in pharmacy curricula, and to map current literature on preferred teaching and assessment methods related to geriatric pharmacy education. METHODS: Four databases were searched to identify papers involving pharmacy learners, education, and geriatrics. Selection process was a two-step approach, involving independent title/abstract screening by two reviewers, then full-text retrieval for eligibility assessment. All types of articles were considered except opinion papers. Data extraction included details on methodology, participants, setting, educational activity, teaching method, and outcomes assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2537 articles were identified from which 189 met the inclusion criteria: 221 documents after citation and gray literature searching. Articles were grouped for analysis as education-related intervention articles (studies, n = 100 or descriptive articles/case reports, n = 49), studies not including an education-related intervention (n = 49), and others (e.g., reviews, position papers/statements, n = 23). Various teaching methods were reported including experiential, didactic, interprofessional, or simulation. Most articles reported positive outcomes on skills, knowledge, or attitudes, but few articles used a validated assessment tool. Curricula and student's surveys were consistent with suboptimal geriatric education, with few programs offering mandatory dedicated geriatric courses or rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps remain regarding geriatric inclusion in pharmacy curricula despite decades of evidence, advocacy, and frameworks to guide its development. A wide diversity of teaching methods has been described and their combination may be considered for skills and competency development. There is a need for the scholarship of teaching and learning to be applied to pharmacy programs in order to prepare future pharmacists for an aging society.
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 | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".