Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33670595›Full record

ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2021

PaCE Yourself: Impact of COVID-19 on Patient-Centered Care Experience.

Kristen Wilhite, Mikael Jones, Clark Kebodeaux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kristen WilhiteCollege of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40508, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1550-6509
Mikael JonesCollege of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40508, USA.
Clark KebodeauxCollege of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40508, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: The outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, forced colleges of pharmacy to implement new online learning methodologies to ensure that students could complete required courses. This transition was especially acute for laboratory simulation courses that require students to practice professional skills. This study aims to compare student assessment performance within a simulation-based laboratory course for students who completed the module prior to and after the online transition. (2) Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort comparison of student outcome performance with two distinct content delivery methods. Students were organized into two tracks at the beginning of the semester to determine the order of the simulation module. The online learning transition occurred in-between the delivery of the same module, which allowed comparison of online versus in-person content delivery with consistent assessment. Remediation rates on each assessment were compared using chi-squared tests. (3) Results: Student pharmacists across the first and second professional year performed similarly despite in-person or online course formats, with no significant differences in remediation rates. (4) Conclusions: Pharmacy course content, including laboratory-based simulation activity, may produce similar assessment performance when using online content delivery. Further research into hybrid or mixed-delivery models may enhance learning without affecting assessment performance.

Indexed as

assessmentCOVID-19onlinesimulationstudent pharmaciststeaching and learning

Identifiers

PMID33670595
PMCPMC7931034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.