Pharmacists’ Attitudes, Perceptions, and Preferences Regarding Continuing Education: Cross-Sectional Study in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The evolution of the health care landscape necessitates expanding the roles of pharmacists in patient-centered care to encompass direct patient management, collaborative practice, and preventive service. These responsibilities can be fulfilled by pharmacists through ongoing professional development, in which continuing education (CE) is instrumental to career advancement and improved patient care. Objective: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess Vietnamese pharmacists' attitudes, perceptions, and preferences regarding CE. Methods: Participants were recruited via convenience and snowball sampling, after which a validated 42-item questionnaire was administered to them through online and offline channels from December 2024 to February 2025. The data were examined via descriptive statistical analysis using SPSS (version 26.0; IBM Corp). The associations between participant characteristics and attitudinal or perception scores (P<.05) were assessed using 1-way ANOVA with 1000 bootstrap samples. Results: This study involved 508 pharmacists, most of whom were aged 25 to 30 years (n=197, 38.8%), and the majority held university degrees (n=360, 70.9%). Their mean attitudinal score was 44.4 (SD 5.5), reflecting generally positive attitudes toward CE. However, significant differences in mean attitudinal scores were found across groups categorized by education level, job position, and frequency of overtime (P<.05). More than half of the participants derived good scores on their perceptions of CE, with their preferred CE formats including computer- and internet-based learning, as well as the use of medical search engines. Finally, the pharmacists expressed a strong preference for CE topics focusing on skill development. Conclusions: The Vietnamese pharmacists exhibited positive attitudes toward CE, favoring flexible learning formats and practical topics. These insights can inform the efforts of policymakers and educators to enhance CE accessibility, improve pharmacists' competencies, and, ultimately, advance patient care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".