A Scoping Review of Planetary Health Education in Pharmacy Curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Climate change threatens humanity, biodiversity, and global health, with the health care system already experiencing its effects. The pharmacy profession must act on environmental sustainability; however, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding its integration into pharmacy education. Despite interest by pharmacy educators and updates to pharmacy program accreditation standards in some countries, resources on integrating this content remain limited. This scoping review aimed to summarize the extent, range, and nature of research and implementation of planetary health content within pharmacy education globally. FINDINGS: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Nine databases were searched using well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers screened and assessed publications for eligibility, and data were charted to collate results. The search yielded 1827 publications, with 16 selected for analysis, providing 28 examples of planetary health content integrated into 25 pharmacy schools across 12 countries. The content was organized using a framework with 4 main categories: the impact of environmental disruptions on health, the impact of health on the environment, mitigation strategies, and adaptation strategies. Integration varied, occurring across curricula, in mandatory courses, or through electives and extracurricular activities. Teaching methods also varied, with self-directed and didactic learning being the most common. SUMMARY: While still limited, international efforts to integrate planetary health into pharmacy education are increasing. This review provides a framework to guide discussions on core competencies for pharmacy curricula.
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 | 0.021 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".