The state of the academic pharmacy workforce specializing in geriatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the training, career experiences, and roles and responsibilities of faculty members in American and Canadian schools/colleges of pharmacy involved in geriatrics-focused teaching, research, practice, or service. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based, self-administered survey was developed and pre-tested. Pharmacy faculty members with experience and/or expertise in geriatrics-focused practices or scholarships and/or who taught geriatrics-focused topics in US or Canadian pharmacy programs were eligible for participation. Participants were recruited using a multi-pronged approach between June and November 2022. FINDINGS: A total of 131 completed and non-duplicate surveys were received. Ninety percent of respondents were from US programs and 64.9% worked in public institutions. Sixty-two percent reported greater than 40% teaching efforts, and 39% indicated they were the only person in their program to advocate for geriatrics-focused content. Most reported expectations for scholarship (96.2%), and 77.1% maintained a clinical practice. Among those with research expectations, 53.5% agreed they had an adequate percentage allocation dedicated to research. CONCLUSION: Geriatrics pharmacy faculty report geriatrics and non-geriatrics teaching expectations, clinical practice workloads, and less time for scholarly productivity. Most respondents have extensive experience in geriatrics; however, many perceive themselves to be the only advocates for geriatrics-focused topics in their programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".