ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Feasibility of a pilot preceptorship programme for pharmacists working towards the advanced career stage in Scotland: a mixed-methods study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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
introductionStructured preceptorship programmes may support pharmacists working towards the advanced career stage, yet evidence on feasibility remains limited.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a pilot preceptorship programme for pharmacists working towards the advanced career stage.
methodAn embedded mixed-methods pilot study was conducted in primary care practices within one territorial health board in NHS Scotland, recruiting four preceptor-preceptee pairs for a 16-week preceptorship programme. Quantitative data assessed programme delivery, including joint clinical sessions, shadowing sessions and changes in preceptee-reported self-efficacy and competence from baseline to 16 weeks. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with preceptors, preceptees, and senior pharmacy management explored perceptions of implementation barriers and enablers. Data were analysed using the COM-B framework, which considers Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation as key influences on behaviour.
resultsFeasibility assessment demonstrated incomplete implementation, with preceptee-reported delivery of 14 of 60 anticipated joint clinical sessions (including both preceptee led clinics and shadowing sessions) and 3 of 12 anticipated structured review meetings over the 16-week programme. Self-reported self-efficacy and competence data were collected over the study period; however, due to incomplete implementation, these data are not interpreted as evidence of programme effect. Qualitative analysis identified participants' perceptions of barriers to implementation, including competing workload priorities, lack of protected time, logistical challenges, limited stakeholder engagement, and insufficient holistic feedback (as feedback primarily focused on clinical rather than practical aspects), alongside enablers such as access to resources and the perceived value of preceptorship.
conclusionThe pilot preceptorship programme was not fully feasible in this professional context, highlighting important considerations for future implementation. Despite incomplete delivery, participants reported perceived changes in self-reported self-efficacy and competence; however, these findings do not provide evidence of programme effect, highlighting the need for further refinement and evaluation of preceptorship models in advanced pharmacist practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758429What 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.