Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Attitudes and opinions of pharmacy undergraduates towards the integration of innovation and entrepreneurship programs into professional education.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundInnovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) ability has been defined as one of the key elements and expected outcomes of personal and professional development among pharmacy students. As an emerging trend in pharmacy undergraduate training, the organic integration of I&E elements in professional education offers a critical means to cultivate high-quality pharmacy professionals. However, the current methods of doing so have not incorporated adequate consultation with pharmacy undergraduates, who are key stakeholders in I&E and professional education. This work aimed to examine pharmacy undergraduates' attitudes and opinions about the integration of I&E programs into professional education and their preferred integration model.
methodsIn this cross-sectional observational survey, a self-developed questionnaire was used to measure I&E practices, attitudes, and preferred implementation models regarding the integration of I&E programs into professional education among all pharmacy undergraduates enrolled at Wuhan University of Science and Technology, China.
resultsA total of 264 valid questionnaires were collected, with a participation rate of 91.7%. Only 33.7% and 20.8% of the respondents had applied for I&E training projects and had participated in I&E competitions, respectively. The mean self-rated scores on 5-point Likert scales were 2.99 for understanding of the pharmaceutical industry, 3.03 for understanding of pharmacy academic research, 2.33 for their own entrepreneurial competence, and 2.76 for their innovative competence. Most students showed positive attitudes towards the integration of I&E into professional pharmacy education; however, fewer than half had positive entrepreneurial attitudes at the individual level. 'Market uncertainty and tight competition' was perceived as the most important barrier jeopardizing pharmacy undergraduates' entrepreneurial prospects, and students were most concerned about 'innovative idea generation' in terms of their innovation. More students (39%) felt that I&E programs should be longitudinally distributed within the current professional education framework; 44% and 56% reported that their preferred stages of pharmacy education and types of courses for integration of I&E programs were 'professional theoretical training' and 'required courses,' respectively.
conclusionsPharmacy undergraduates had a positive attitude towards integrating I&E into professional pharmacy education. However, further efforts are needed to improve students' understanding, confidence, practices, and competence with respect to pharmacy I&E.
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.