Current Status of Leadership Education in Pharmacy Schools: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the profession evolves, pharmacy schools worldwide are recognizing the importance of leadership education, starting at the undergraduate level.This study examined the status of leadership education in international pharmacy programs to propose strategies for effective implementation in Korean pharmacy schools.Methods: Leadership curricula from 34 pharmacy schools across 5 countries (the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia) were collected from school websites, syllabi, and articles using keywords such as "leadership" or "leader" and analyzed based on course titles, academic years taught, program types (e.g., required, elective, or cocurricular and extracurricular), credits, content, teaching and learning methods, and assessments.Results: Although most pharmacy schools teach pharmacy leadership, objectives, content, teaching methods, and assessment approaches vary.Most programs offer these as elective (50.0%) or required (38.5%) courses, both of which are more common than cocurricular or extracurricular formats (11.6%).The course content often includes leadership theories, competencies, self-development and reflection, organizational management, and global themes.Most courses are 1~2 credits and use various methods, including lectures, discussions, projects, case studies, and guest speakers.Conclusions: The findings identify substantial variation in leadership education across pharmacy curricula.To prepare students to take on leadership roles within the pharmacy profession and face a changing health care system, schools should recognize and raise awareness of the importance of leadership education and ensure their curricula also reflect this.Furthermore, these findings suggest the need to develop a systematic curriculum with practical and experiential learning methods to promote leadership competency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".