ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Exploring Feedback Mechanics during Experiential Learning in Pharmacy Education: A Scoping Review.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feedback as a two-way process: how relational dynamics shape learning in workplace-based training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring Pharmacy Students' Perceptions of Feedback and Self-Reflection in Patient Counselling Simulations: Implications for Professional Development.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
(1) Background: This scoping review aims to explore the literature on feedback for pharmacy students during experiential learning, with a focus on identifying the modes of delivery of feedback and the perceived impact of feedback on student learning outcomes. (2) Methods: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, ERIC, and ProQuest Central were searched electronically from their inception until the end of February 2023 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms related to feedback, pharmacy education, and student learning outcomes. Data were synthesized narratively. (3) Results: This review included 13 studies published between 2008 and 2022. Almost half of the included studies were conducted in the USA (n = 6, 46%) and reported the perspective of undergraduate pharmacy students (n = 6, 46%). Verbal feedback was the most common mode of feedback delivery (n = 6, 46%). The enablers of effective feedback included timely feedback (n = 6, 46%), feedback provided in a goal-oriented and objective manner (n = 5, 40%), and student-specific feedback (n = 4, 30%). On the other hand, the most common impediments to feedback efficacy were providing extremely positive feedback and lack of constructive criticism. (4) Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of feedback model implementation in pharmacy education and preceptor training programs to ensure effective and quality feedback to pharmacy students.
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.