Canadian Pharmacy Educators’ Perspectives on Sustainable Health Care Topics in Pharmacy Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Climate change is a global phenomenon to which the health care sector contributes significantly. Pharmaceuticals contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through all stages of their lifecycle. Pharmacists are well situated to support sustainable practices in health care; however, it is unclear to what extent current pharmacy students receive education on this topic within their programs. The objective of this study was to gain insight into the extent to which topics related to sustainability and the environmental impact of medications are currently being included in Canadian undergraduate pharmacy education programs. The perspectives and attitudes of pharmacy educators toward including such topics were also explored. METHODS: The study surveyed pharmacy educators across Canada. Questions were categorized into current teaching practices related to the topic; motivators, barriers, enablers, and attitudes toward the topic area; and baseline demographics. RESULTS: A total of 37 responses were received with representation from all but one of the pharmacy schools in Canada. Overall, 32% of respondents currently include environmental sustainability-related material in their teaching with the most common delivery format being lecture-based. Respondents were overall supportive of the inclusion of such material but expressed concern over where to include such content within the current curriculum and indicated a lack of expertise and faculty support to create the content. CONCLUSION: Currently, the inclusion of content related to pharmaceuticals and the environment is not widespread in Canadian undergraduate pharmacy education, but educators are supportive of the future inclusion of this material. Barriers identified need to be addressed to support this curricular transformation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".