ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2019
Report of the 2018-2019 Student Affairs Standing Committee.
Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pre-matriculation Success Program to Improve Pharmacy Students' Academic Performance at a Historically Black University.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2021Article
- Advancing Our Pharmacy Reformation - Accelerating Education and Practice Transformation: Report of the 2019-2020 Argus Commission.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2020Article
- Challenges to Pharmacy School Enrollment Management Caused by a Global Pandemic.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2018-2019 Student Affairs Standing Committee addressed charges related to examining the institutional leadership models and professional development needs of faculty and staff to optimize achievement of Strategic Priority #1 on the applicant pipeline. The report provides five recommendations to AACP and twelve suggestions for colleges and schools of pharmacy. The committee focused on the need to develop tailored leadership training and mentoring programs for admissions personnel on relevant topics, including change management, holistic thinking, leadership, problem solving, technical knowledge, professional development, paths for promotion, conflict resolution, networking, persuasive communication, and strategic planning. Rather than develop new resources, the committee identified existing professional competencies and assessment resources developed by other organizations for student affairs and admissions personnel that could spur enhanced strategic marketing and professional development opportunities in pharmacy education. It also reaffirmed the need for student diversity and the use of data to drive strategic decisions in recruitment. To identify gaps in knowledge among AACP member institutions, the committee analyzed the results of its fall 2018 survey on the current depth and breadth of student recruitment activities and their perceived effectiveness. The committee also recommended ways institutions can encourage faculty and others outside of the admissions office to participate in student recruitment activities. Finally, the committee concluded that it will be necessary for colleges and schools to collaborate across the academy to promote the benefits of pharmacy profession to prospective students, rather than individual colleges and schools of pharmacy, and be more responsive to the expectations of Gen Z students before the tide in applications will shift in a positive direction.
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.