ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Design and Evaluation of Scholarship and Research Orientation Sessions in Academic Pharmacy Practice Experiences.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate the efficacy of educating academic Advance Pharmacy Practice Experiential (APPE) students on scholarship and research (S&R). We hypothesized that academic APPE students gain more knowledge in scholarship and research in comparison to non-academic APPE students.
methodsAs a component of academic APPE rotation, all academic APPE students assigned by the office of experiential education per year (the intervention group) (n = 11) attended S&R sessions during the first week of their academic APPE rotation. Student volunteers from the same graduating class were recruited as the control group (n = 12). However, 1 student from the intervention group and 2 students from the control group were excluded from the analysis, leaving 10 students from each group. These sessions were taken in small groups of 1 to 3 once in their assigned rotation. S&R sessions included many topics that were based on a S&R manual. Upon completion of the sessions, a hard copy of a 10-question knowledge-based quiz was given to both groups at the same time. APPE students' knowledge about S&R were assessed via grading the quiz. The anonymity of the quiz was maintained by requesting students only to mention whether they are from intervention group or controlled group.
resultsWhile control group averaged 49% ± 4.58 on the quiz, the intervention group averaged 71.5% ± 5.77. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Based on independent sample
conclusionCompared to the control group, S&R sessions helped academic APPE students to gain knowledge on S&R. The students also perceived that S&R sessions increased their interest in S&R.
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.