Uncovering the Construction of Professional Identity in Pharmacy Education: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncovering the Construction of Professional Identity in Pharmacy Education: A Scoping Review Protocol Nataly R. Espinoza Suarez,1 Marianne Ruel2, Marilou Belisle3, Marie-Laurence Tremblay4 1. Faculty of Nursing, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada. 2. Laval University Library, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada. 3. Faculty of Education, Sherbrooke University, Longueuil, Qc, Canada 4. Faculty of pharmacy, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada. Author emails nataly.espinoza-suarez.1@ulaval.ca marilou.e.belisle@usherbrooke.ca marie-laurence.tremblay@pha.ulaval.ca Corresponding author Marie-Laurence Tremblay, B. Pharm, PhD, BCPS Faculté de pharmacie Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry 1050, Ave de la médecine, Local 2554 Université Laval Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6 Téléphone : 418-656-2131 poste 403256 marie-laurance.tremblay@pha.ulaval.ca Abstract Introduction Developing a professional identity is crucial during the transition from student to professional, as it influences their work attitudes and behaviors. Pharmacy students were previously characterized as having a weak or unclear professional identity. However, in pharmacy education, identity development is still overlooked in the curriculum. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether their professional identity has become more defined or increasingly ambiguous. Understanding how professional identity has been described in the literature is crucial to fostering strategies for strengthening pharmacists' professional identity. To enable them to perform their duties more effectively and fully, thereby better serving the population. Methods and analysis This scoping review will be developed following the methodology by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and improved by Levac et al. (2010). The review will include data published from 2009 to September 2024. The search strategy will include the following databases: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (embase.com), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Web of science, ERIC (OVID). The review will be conducted from October 2024 to February 2025. The search strategy will be elaborated in conjunction with a professional librarian. Screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening will be done in duplicates. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies during the screening process. The results will be presented narratively. Ethics and dissemination This scoping review will use publicly available documents for data collection; therefore, this review does not require ethical approval. The results of this scoping review will also be presented as a scientific article and social media platforms from healthcare organizations or academic institutions. Key words Professional identity, professional identity formation, pharmacists, pharmacy education, pharmacy Strengths and limitations of this study ⇒ This review will explore articles from interdisciplinary databases. ⇒ This review will not use language restrictions during the search strategy, thereby reducing the risk of publication bias and providing the opportunity to include studies from diverse cultures and contexts. ⇒ This team includes researchers from multiple disciplines (social sciences and health sciences). ⇒ This review will include multiple reviewers for all phases of identification and selection.
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 | 0.217 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".