Curriculum, competency development, and assessment methods of MSc and PhD pharmacy programs: a scoping review

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review and evaluate the current landscape of postgraduate pharmacy education to a) identify current evidence, best practices, challenges, recommendations, and solutions; and b) develop a framework to optimize postgraduate pharmacy programs.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were utilized. The search covered studies published from January 2011 to September 2023. Following the principles of Arksey and O'Malley's framework, data charting and extraction were performed using a pre-designed data collection tool, followed by the synthesis and grouping of studies based on common themes.

RESULTS

Of the 5542 articles found, the review included 36 eligible ones focusing on pharmacy postgraduate education (PhD and MSc), grouped into three themes: 1) courses and curriculum; 2) training and skills development; 3) assessment and mentorship methods. Utilized methodologies included descriptive analyses, questionnaires, surveys, trials, and focus groups/interviews. The studies underscored the need for competency-based curricula with regular evaluations, career planning, and diverse course offerings. Identified key skills and competencies in the studies included soft skills, communication, research, desperate skills (e.g., leadership and management), and critical thinking. The studies also emphasized the value of comprehensive evaluation and peer review methods. Challenges included balancing academic and real-world requirements, training, limited resources, time constraints, and faculty workload.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based suggestions to improve postgraduate pharmacy education include the implementation of practice-oriented courses, value of tailored/or comprehensive assessments, focus on real-world skills, effectiveness of advanced teaching methods, and mentorship role. The proposed framework can guide program enhancement and highlight the need to improve programs holistically, entailing the three themes.

Informatics for Chemistry, Biology, and Biomedical Sciences

Informatics is growing across disciplines, impacting several areas of chemistry, biology, and biomedical sciences. Besides the well-established bioinformatics discipline, other informatics-based interdisciplinary fields have been evolving over time, such as chemoinformatics and biomedical informatics. Other related research areas such as pharmacoinformatics, food informatics, epi-informatics, materials informatics, and neuroinformatics have emerged more recently and continue to develop as independent subdisciplines. The goals and impacts of each of these disciplines have typically been separately reviewed in the literature. Hence, it remains challenging to identify commonalities and key differences. Herein, we discuss in context three major informatics disciplines in the natural and life sciences including bioinformatics, chemoinformatics, and biomedical informatics and briefly comment on related subdisciplines. We focus the discussion on the definitions, historical background, actual impact, main similarities, and differences and evaluate the dissemination and teaching of bioinformatics, chemoinformatics, and biomedical informatics.

Mobile Health Applications for Pediatric Care: Review and Comparison

BACKGROUND

Despite the surge in mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) about pediatric care in commercial app stores, to our knowledge, reviews of the quality of such apps are lacking. Consequently, it is a great challenge for health care professionals (HCPs) to identify appropriate and reliable mHealth apps for delivering health care services. Thus, we performed a structured review of the extant literature about mHealth apps in pediatric care and quality assessment of selected apps found in commercial app stores.

METHODS

A review and comparison of mHealth apps in pediatric care found in Google's Play Store (Android system) and Apple's App Store (iOS system) were performed. For the structured review of the available literature, Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and Science Direct online databases were used for the literature search. The assessment criteria used for comparison included requirement for Internet connection, size of application, information on disease, diagnostic tools, medical calculator, information on disease treatments, dosage recommendations, and drug interaction checker.

RESULTS

Fifty mHealth apps for general pediatric care and 8 mHealth apps for specific pediatric diseases were discussed in the literature. Of the 90 mHealth apps we reviewed, 27 that fulfilled the study criteria were selected for quality assessment. Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline scored the highest (score=7), while PediaBP scored the lowest (score=3).

CONCLUSIONS

Medscape, Skyscape, and iGuideline are the most comprehensive mHealth apps for HCPs as quick references for pediatric care. More studies about mHealth apps in pediatric care are warranted to ensure the quality and reliability of mHealth apps.