Student perspectives on the integration of environmental sustainability and climate Change into the doctor of pharmacy program curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been an increased focus on evaluating the environmental impact of medications and the pharmacist's role in reducing this impact. The University of British Columbia (UBC) Entry to Practice Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) program curriculum in Canada, provides limited exposure to climate change and environmental sustainability in relation to pharmacy practice. The objective of this study was to characterize students' prior exposure and preference for learning about the impact of medications on the environment. METHODS: An online survey was developed and disseminated via email and social media to the 865 students enrolled in Program Years 1 to 4 of the UBC PharmD program. The survey consisted of 13 questions covering demographics, prior knowledge level on the topic and learning preferences. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses. RESULTS: A total of 117 students completed the survey (response rate = 14 %). Approximately one-third (37 %) of participants indicated previous educational exposure to climate change and sustainability separate from their PharmD education, and 21 % indicated exposure during their PharmD education. The majority of respondents (97 %) indicated that they are interested in this topic with 91 % planning to advocate for sustainable pharmacy practices in their future careers. Most students rated their knowledge level as basic or moderate for both the contribution of the healthcare systems and pharmacy practice and pharmaceuticals on climate change and the environment. Lastly, 77 % of participants felt that integrating education on climate change and sustainability into the PharmD curriculum was necessary. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that students have a strong interest in learning about the impact of medications on the environment. However, current educational exposure to this topic within the UBC PharmD program is limited, highlighting a gap in the curriculum. Future research should focus on the incorporation of climate change and sustainability into the pharmacy curriculum.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".