ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2012
Development of a course review process.
Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closing the loop: Strengthening course quality of Pharm.D. program via applying a comprehensive four-step review approach.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024Article
- A tool to evaluate physiotherapy clinical education in South Africa.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2022Article
- A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2020Article
- Lessons Learned from Evaluating a Process for Systematic Curriculum Review.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2019Article
- Evaluating the online platform of a blended-learning pharmacist continuing education degree program.Medical education online · 2016Article
- The effect of active learning methodologies on the teaching of pharmaceutical care in a Brazilian pharmacy faculty.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and assess a course review process designed to enhance course quality.
designA course review process led by the curriculum and assessment committees was designed for all required courses in the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program at a school of pharmacy. A rubric was used by the review team to address 5 areas: course layout and integration, learning outcomes, assessment, resources and materials, and learner interaction. ASSESSMENT: One hundred percent of targeted courses, or 97% of all required courses, were reviewed from January to August 2010 (n=30). Approximately 3.5 recommendations per course were made, resulting in improvement in course evaluation items related to learning outcomes. Ninety-five percent of reviewers and 85% of course directors agreed that the process was objective and the course review process was important.
conclusionThe course review process was objective and effective in improving course quality. Future work will explore the effectiveness of an integrated, continual course review process in improving the quality of pharmacy education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.