Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38495351›Full record

ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2023

Development and Pilot Testing of the

Sarah E Vordenberg, Paige Whittaker, Ken DeBacker, Michael Dorsch

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 72% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah E VordenbergUniversity of Michigan College of Pharmacy.
Paige WhittakerUniversity of Michigan College of Pharmacy.
Ken DeBackerUniversity of Michigan College of Pharmacy.
Michael DorschUniversity of Michigan College of Pharmacy.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Description of the problem: Pharmacy students are expected to learn how condition and patient-specific factors influence medication decision-making. Our objective was to create an interactive learning tool that would support students as they learn how individual factors change over-the-counter (OTC) medication recommendations. Description of the innovation: OTC Coach was created to allow student pharmacists to practice making recommendations about OTC medications. First year student pharmacists enrolled in a required self-care therapeutics course were given access to the optional OTC Coach, which included electronic decision algorithms for 10 topics. Student perceptions were collected via an online survey. Critical analysis: Two-thirds of the first-year students enrolled in the self-care therapeutics course activated their OTC Coach account (n=53/79, 67%). Among the students who completed the survey and reported using the tool (n=60/75, 80%), there was agreement that it help them learn the course material (78%), increased their confidence in making appropriate therapeutic recommendations (78%), increased their confidence when answering examination questions (63%), and improved their examination performance (61%). Next steps: Implementing an electronic tool positively supported student learning about OTC medication recommendations, according to student self-report. The tool is being expanded to include an option for students to generate a series of scenarios with randomized patient and condition factors to further allow students to efficiently practice making repeated patient-centered recommendations.

Indexed as

over-the-counter medicationsimulationstudent pharmacisttherapeutic decision making

Identifiers

PMID38495351
PMCPMC10939487
OpenAlexW4388860261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.