Pharmacists’ perceptions of the impact of Objective Structured Clinical Examination on professional development and competence: a cross-sectional study in Qatar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a key tool in healthcare education, assessing clinical skills and competencies. This study explores OSCE's impact on pharmacists' competence, confidence, and practice readiness, focusing on its role in professional development and long-term practice improvement. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among Qatar University pharmacy graduates with at least a year of practice experience. The survey included 10 items on a 4-point Likert scale to capture quantitative data, along with open-ended questions for more detailed reflections and qualitative insights. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, and qualitative data were thematically analyzed through an inductive approach, with two researchers independently coded responses and identifying themes. KEY FINDINGS: Out of 75 eligible pharmacists, 46 responded (61.3% response rate). Over 85% reported that OSCE improved communication and interprofessional collaboration skills, and 80% felt it helped apply essential professional skills effectively. However, opinions varied on making OSCE a licensure requirement. Six main themes emerged: (i) Enhanced Interprofessional Collaboration Skills, (ii) Application of Professional Skills, (iii) Practical Application of Pharmacy Education, (iv) Adaptability for Evolving Healthcare Challenges, (v) Enhancement of Patient-Facing Communication Skills, and (vi) Identification of Personal Strengths and Weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that OSCEs enhance pharmacists' clinical skills, communication, and practice readiness. Pharmacy programs should continue integrating OSCEs alongside other assessments for comprehensive evaluation. Policymakers are encouraged to explore OSCEs for licensure, ensuring standardization and evaluator training. Future research should assess OSCE's long-term impact on pharmacists' career development and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".