Navigating the influence of professional abstinence on pharmacy students: Observations and solutions from their perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: As the scope of practice continues to evolve for pharmacists, professional abstinence is being observed by students in workplaces and practicums. Professional abstinence is defined as "consciously choosing not to provide the full scope of patient care activities". Exposure of students to professional abstinence may cause cognitive dissonance, as they are challenged by practices that do not match what they are taught in school. This study explores pharmacy student perspectives on professional abstinence in community practice settings and their thoughts on how it could be addressed. Methods: Pharmacy students enrolled at an accredited Canadian pharmacy school with previous experience at a community practice site were invited to participate via email and social media. Data were collected between March and November 2021 through virtual individual interviews using a semistructured guide and the Zoom platform. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, and data were analyzed using cognitive dissonance theory to guide the inductive coding and interpretation of results. Results: Twenty students representing 6 pharmacy schools were recruited. Themes identified regarding students' experiences with professional abstinence were "introspection and reflection" and "the system", with the subthemes of emotion, excuses, professional identity and infrastructure, and inertia/disengagement, respectively. Regarding how to address professional abstinence, the themes "self as professional" and "empowering professionals" emerged. Self as professional included the subthemes of continuous learning, role modelling/mentorship, and internal drive/initiative, while empowering professionals included improved logistics, self-care, and advocacy. Conclusion: Students' experiences with professional abstinence led to mixed feelings and influences on their professional identity. Pharmacy schools should be made aware of the phenomenon of professional abstinence and its effect on students, as they can potentially help manage learners' cognitive dissonance and best prepare them for their future full-scope practices.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".