ArticlePharmacy practice
Competency-based assessment of practice-based experiential learning in undergraduate pharmacy programmes.
Article in Pharmacy practice. 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.
- Pharmacy students' insights on assessment tools and their predictive value in evaluating clinical competencies.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Competency-based curricula in the Eastern Mediterranean Region schools of pharmacy: a framework-informed mixed method study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Competency-Based Assessment in Experiential Learning in Undergraduate Pharmacy Programmes: Qualitative Exploration of Facilitators' Views and Needs (ACTp Study).Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To obtain feedback from experiential leaning (EL) leads about how competency-based assessments could be undertaken by EL facilitators, and to scope existing EL assessment structures in undergraduate Masters in Pharmacy (MPharm) programmes across the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted utilizing a nine-item on-line survey, consisting of five open-ended and four closed-ended question. All UK universities with MPharm programmes (n=30) were invited to participate in the survey. Variables of interest were perceptions on activities and competencies that could be assessed by EL facilitators. The survey utilised a 5-point Likert-type response ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Other variables of interest were tools/methods that could be used to assess competency, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methods, the latter two captured via open-ended questions. Results: Of the 21 universities that responded (Response rate: 70%), 17 were included in the final analysis. Fourteen of the 17 (82.4%) offered the 4-year programme, while 3 (17.6%) offered both the 4-year and 5-year integrated programme. Assessments were mainly undertaken by university staff (59%), with minimal amounts undertaken during EL (39%). There was unanimous agreement (100%) that facilitators could assess students' communication skills and professionalism during EL. No consensus, however, was achieved with regard to the tool(s) or method(s) to be used to assess student's competencies. There were 13 responses to the open-ended comments. An advantage noted was that EL facilitator assessment of students would allow for more accurate evaluation of students in the practice setting, while acknowledging barriers such as the burden of time and the lack of consistency in marking. To address this lack of consistency, the majority highlighted the need for facilitator training. Conclusion: Minimal assessments are currently undertaken during EL, with students predominantly assessed on return to the university. No consensus could be achieved with regard to the tool(s) or method(s) to be used to assess students' competencies, suggesting that perhaps there is no one-size-fits-all, and that the tools and methods used should be informed by the competencies being assessed.
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.