Awards given to medical school faculty are one important mechanism for recognizing what is valued in academic medicine. There have been concerns expressed about the gender distribution of awards, and there is also a growing appreciation for the evolving accomplishments and talents that define academic excellence in the 21st century and that should be considered worthy of award recognition.
Examine faculty awards at our institution for gender equity and evolving values.
Recipient data were collected on awards from 1996 to 2007 inclusively at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (SOM). Descriptions of each award also were collected. The female-to-male ratio of award recipients over the time span was reviewed for changes and trends. The title and text of each award announcement were reviewed to determine if the award represented a traditional or a newer concept of excellence in academic medicine.
There were 21 annual awards given to a total of 59 clinical award recipients, 60 research award recipients, and 154 teaching award recipients. Women received 28% of research awards, 29% of teaching awards and 10% of clinical awards. Gender distribution of total awards was similar to that of SOM full-time faculty except in the clinical awards category. Only one award reflected a shift in the culture of individual achievement to one of collaboration and team performance.
Examining both the recipients and content of awards is important to assure they reflect the current composition of diverse faculty and the evolving ideals of leadership and excellence in academic medicine.
faculty awards; gender equity; female-to-male ratio; leadership; excellence
The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) were initiated to improve the conduct and impact of NIH's research portfolio, transforming training programs and research infrastructure at academic institutions and creating a nationwide consortium. They provide a model for translating research across disciplines and offer an efficient and powerful platform for comparative effectiveness research (CER), an effort that has long struggled but enjoys renewed hope under health care reform. CTSAs include study design and methods expertise, informatics, and regulatory support; programs in education, training, and career development in domains central to CER; and robust programs in community engagement, both of the general public and of clinical practice communities.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and Montefiore Medical Center have entered a formal partnership that places their CTSA at a critical intersection for clinical and translational research. Their CTSA leaders were asked to develop a strategy for enhancing CER activities, and in 2010 they developed a model that encompasses four broadly defined “compartments” of research strength that must be coordinated for this enterprise to succeed: evaluation and health services research, biobehavioral research and prevention, efficacy studies and clinical trials, and social science and implementation research.
This article provides historical context for CER, elucidates Einstein-Montefiore’s CER model and strategic planning efforts, and illustrates how a CTSA can provide a vision, leadership, coordination, and services to support an academic health center’s collaborative efforts to develop a robust CER portfolio and thus contribute to the national effort to improve health and health care.
Martin G. Myers Jr., MD, PhD, received the American Diabetes Association's prestigious 2010 Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award at the Association's 70th Scientific Sessions in Orlando, Florida, on 28 June 2010. The Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award recognizes outstanding scientific achievement in the field of diabetes, taking into consideration independence of thought and originality.
Currently the Marilyn H. Vincent Professor of Diabetes Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Associate Professor in internal medicine and in molecular and integrative physiology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Dr. Myers began his impressive track record in diabetes research as a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Morris White at the Joslin Diabetes Center/Harvard Medical School. There, Dr. Myers deciphered many of the insulin signaling pathways engaged by insulin receptor substrate proteins.
Following his graduation from the Harvard MD-PhD Program in 1997, Dr. Myers was promoted to instructor in medicine at the Joslin Diabetes Center/Harvard Medical School. He began his independent work by building a molecular framework for understanding the mechanisms of leptin signaling, including how individual phosphorylation sites on the leptin receptor recruit distinct signaling molecules. He was promoted to assistant professor at Harvard in 1999.
In 2004, Dr. Myers moved to the University of Michigan, where he built upon the molecular framework of leptin signaling to probe the regulation of metabolism by individual leptin signals. Dr. Myers' laboratory revealed the specificity of leptin signals in metabolic control, including the role for leptin-STAT3 signaling in the regulation of energy balance and glucose homeostasis. His group also defined roles for leptin receptor feedback inhibition and hypothalamic mTor signaling in metabolism.
Dr. Myers' laboratory has recently developed novel molecular approaches to elucidate the leptin-regulated brain circuits that contribute to metabolic control, enabling the discovery of novel brain systems and their functions.
In 1998, Dr. Myers received the American Diabetes Association's Career Development Award for his scientific abilities. Dr. Myers' current support includes the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases MERIT Award.
To document teaching evaluation practices in colleges and schools of pharmacy.
A 51-item questionnaire was developed based on the instrument used in a previous study with modifications made to address changes in pharmacy education. An online survey service was used to distribute the electronic questionnaire to the deans of 98 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States.
Completed surveys were received from 89 colleges and schools of pharmacy. All colleges/schools administered student evaluations of classroom and experiential teaching. Faculty peer evaluation of classroom teaching was used by 66% of colleges/schools. Use of other evaluation methods had increased over the previous decade, including use of formalized self-appraisal of teaching, review of teaching portfolios, interviews with samples of students, and review by teaching experts. While the majority (55%) of colleges/schools administered classroom teaching evaluations at or near the conclusion of a course, 38% administered them at the midpoint and/or conclusion of a faculty member's teaching within a team-taught course. Completion of an online evaluation form was the most common method used for evaluation of classroom (54%) and experiential teaching (72%).
Teaching evaluation methods used in colleges and schools of pharmacy expanded from 1996 to 2007 to include more evaluation of experiential teaching, review by peers, formalized self-appraisal of teaching, review of teaching portfolios, interviews with samples of students, review by teaching experts, and evaluation by alumni. Procedures for conducting student evaluations of teaching have adapted to address changes in curriculum delivery and technology.
teaching; evaluation; assessment; survey
Objective. To identify the manner in which colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico assess full-time faculty preceptors.
Methods. Directors of pharmacy practice (or equivalent title) were invited to complete an online, self-administered questionnaire.
Results. Seventy of the 75 respondents (93.3%) confirmed that their college or school assessed full-time pharmacy faculty members based on activities related to precepting students at a practice site. The most commonly reported assessment components were summative student evaluations (98.5%), type of professional service provided (92.3%), scholarly accomplishments (86.2%), and community service (72.3%). Approximately 42% of respondents indicated that a letter of evaluation provided by a site-based supervisor was included in their assessment process. Some colleges and schools also conducted onsite assessment of faculty members.
Conclusions. Most colleges and schools of pharmacy assess full-time faculty-member preceptors via summative student assessments, although other strategies are used. Given the important role of preceptors in ensuring students are prepared for pharmacy practice, colleges and schools of pharmacy should review their assessment strategies for full-time faculty preceptors, keeping in mind the methodologies used by other institutions.
assessment; faculty; preceptors
In our endeavor to recognize outstanding contributions in the field of translational medicine, the Editorial Board of the Journal of Translational Medicine (JTM) in collaboration with Global Translational Medicine at Pfizer established "The Excellence in Translational Medicine Award" in May 2006. Fifteen nominated papers from investigators representative of eight countries covering a wide range of disciplines published in JTM between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 were evaluated. The four finalists and the winner are announced in this editorial.
The research tested the accuracy of the VIVO Harvester software in identifying publications authored by faculty members affiliated with a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA) site.
Health sciences librarians created “gold standard” lists of references for the years 2001 to 2011 from PubMed for twenty-five randomly selected investigators from one CTSA site. These gold standard lists were compared to the same twenty-five investigators' reference lists produced by VIVO Harvester. The authors subjected the discrepancies between the lists to sensitivity and specificity analyses.
The VIVO Harvester correctly identified only about 65% of the total eligible PubMed references for the years 2001–2011 for the CTSA-affiliated investigators. The identified references produced by VIVO Harvester were precise yet incomplete. The sensitivity rate was 0.65, and the specificity rate was 1.00.
While the references produced by VIVO Harvester could be confirmed in PubMed, the VIVO Harvester retrieved only two-thirds of the required references from PubMed. National Institutes of Health CTSA sites will need to supplement VIVO Harvester–produced references with the expert searching skills of health sciences librarians.
Health sciences librarians with searching skills need to alert their CTSA sites about these deficiencies and offer their skills to advance their sites' missions.
Community engaged health research, an approach to research which includes the participation of communities, promotes the translation of research to address and improve social determinants of health. As a way to encourage community engaged research, the National Institutes of Health required applicants to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) to include a community engagement component. Although grant-funding may support an increase in community engaged research, faculty also respond to the rewards and demands of university promotion and tenure standards. This paper measures faculty perception of how three institutions funded by a CTSA support community engaged research in the promotion and tenure process.
At three institutions funded by a CTSA, tenure track and non-tenure track faculty responded to a survey regarding perceptions of how promotion and tenure committees value community engaged research.
Faculty view support for community engaged research with some reserve. Only 36% agree that community engaged research is valued in the promotion and tenure process.
Encouraging community engaged scholarship requires changing the culture and values behind promotion and tenure decisions. Institutions will increase community engaged research and more faculty will adopt its principles, when it is rewarded by promotion and tenure committees.
CTSAs are mandated to follow a multidisciplinary model. Requests for applications direct responsive applications to “integrate clinical and translational science across multiple departments, schools,” listing disciplines in addition to medicine such as engineering, nursing, and public health. This inventory of nurse engagement in CTSAs describes the extent of nursing’s CTSA engagement from the perspective of participating nurse scientists within individual CTSAs, including institutional/national contributions and best practices that foster a multidisciplinary model. Of the 50 CTSAs affiliated with a nursing school, 44 responded (88% response rate). Of the ten CTSAs not affiliated with a nursing school, four responded (40% response rate). Overall funding success rates of nurse applicants are: TL1 fellowships 81%, KL2 fellowships 54%, and nurse-led pilots 58%. At most CTSAs nursing is contributing to the accomplishment of the CTSA mandate. The strongest categories of contribution are community engagement, implementation science, and training. Best practices to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration are: (1) inclusion of multiple disciplines on key committees who meet regularly to guide individual core and overall CTSA strategic planning and implementation; (2) required multidisciplinary co-mentors (ideally from different schools within the CTSA) on training grants and as co-investigators on pilot projects; and (3) documentation of multidisciplinary activity in annual reports.
multidisciplinary; nurse; engagement
The NIEHS is pleased to announce that Raymond F. Burk, a professor of pathology and director of the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Gerd P. Pfeifer, a professor and chair of the Division of Biology at the City of Hope Beckman Research Institute, have each received an award under the Method to Extend Research in Time (MERIT) Award Program. MERIT awards are offered to investigators who have demonstrated superior skill and outstanding productivity during the course of their previous research endeavors. MERIT awards relieve investigators from writing frequent renewal applications by providing the opportunity to gain up to 10 years of support in two segments.
Two research groups led by Yihong Ye of National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, MD, USA and Dr. Lixin Wei of Medical Sciences Research Center, Renji hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China, won the 2013 Ming K Jeang Award for Excellence in Cell & Bioscience.
Surgery is a labor-intensive, time-consuming profession. Young faculty members in surgery are saddled with many clinical time constraints that often allow precious few moments for academic pursuits. Consequently, K award submissions from surgeons trail nonsurgeons. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), however, is actively trying to encourage participation of surgeons in basic science research, translational research, clinical outcomes research, and even in prevention/control research. But, at the same time, the NIH has newly implemented a policy that has made the grant review process more restrictive by only allowing 2 submissions of any grant application. It is imperative, therefore, for junior faculty surgeons to learn “grantsmanship” and have the ability to construct succinct, competitive K award grants. Although most of this information is public knowledge and made available by the NIH itself, many of the practical points presented here are tailored to the special needs of clinically active surgical researchers. Often, these “hints” are buried on expansive websites that require considerable time to read and navigate. The authors have a long combined experience on a study section dedicated to adjudicating K awards. The goal of this review is to present concise, useful information about common errors, research plan dos and don’ts, template examples of superior mentored letters, and many other suggestions that may assist any first-time candidate for these awards.
Three research groups led by Dr. Lixin Feng of Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, Dr. Walter Wahli of University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, and Dr. Gutian Xiao of University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, USA, won the 2012 Ming K Jeang Award for Excellence in Cell & Bioscience.
People with spinal cord injury (SCI) access educational resources during their inpatient rehabilitation, but they can be overwhelmed by the amount of information they need to assimilate during ever-shorter stays. This project created e-learning courses to fill the knowledge needs of SCI consumers and evaluated user satisfaction and knowledge transfer.
A needs assessment of 83 consumers and 99 staff identified information needs for people with SCI (Toronto Rehabilitation Institute – UHN and CPAO, 2008). Key topics were selected for the creation of 10 online patient education courses, collectively called Spinal Cord Injury – University (SCI-U), and housed on the Spinal Cord Connections website (www.spinalcordconnections.ca/sci-u). Course content was developed collaboratively by over 100 consumers and professionals, from healthcare and community service organizations across Canada. Each course uses adult learning principles and presents key information on healthy living with SCI, in an accessible and engaging way. A team of professionals created multimedia courses using Articulate software, incorporating video, animation and interactivity. The courses show the positive faces of SCI, each one featuring 3 video presenters (all people with SCI), and video testimonials where consumers talk about their experience living with SCI and managing their health. Users are encouraged to complete course quizzes to reinforce their learning. A pilot study enrolled consumers and clinicians (n = 25) and evaluated knowledge acquisition and retention, as well as perceived utility and satisfaction with the first 3 courses in the series: SCI and You, Bladder and Bowel.
Knowledge acquisition and retention: across-group mean pre-course, post-course and 1-month post-course scores were “SCI & You” (score/14) 8.19, 10.67, 10.75; “Bladder” (score/13) 5.73, 8.69, 7.09; and “Bowel” (score/12) 6.68, 9.23, 9.00. Perceived utility and satisfaction: across-group mean global satisfaction scores (/5) were “SCI & You” 4.25, “Bladder” 3.89, and “Bowel” 3.94. Across-group mean global effectiveness scores (/5) were “SCI & You”□ 4.16, “Bladder” 4.36, and “Bowel” 4.28. Visits to the SCI-U home page were 773 (2010), 2084 (2011) and 803 (as of March 2012).
SCI-U is an effective tool for patient education, and integrating e-learning into SCI rehabilitation programs has the potential to improve the effectiveness of knowledge transfer.
Rick Hansen Institute Grant Number: 2010-77.
Bracing could be efficacious, given good compliance and quality of braces. Recently the SOSORT Brace Treatment Management Guidelines (SBTMG) have highlighted the perceived importance of the professional teams surrounding braced patients.
To verify the impact of a complete rehabilitation team in the adolescent patient with bracing.
Materials and methods
Design. Initial cross-sectional study, followed by a retrospective case–control study. Population: Thirty-eight patients (15.8 ± 1.6 years; 26 females; 10 hyperkyphosis, 28 scoliosis of 29.2 ± 7.9° Cobb) extracted from a single orthotist database (between January 1, 2008 and September 1, 2009) and treated by the same physician; brace wearing at least 15 hours/day for a minimum of 6 months; age 10 or more. Treatment: Braces: Sforzesco, Sibilla, Lapadula or Maguelone. Exercises: SEAS. Methods: Two questionnaires filled in blindly by patients: SRS-22 and one especially developed and validated with 25 questions on adherence to treatment. Groups (main risk factor): TEAM (private institute: satisfied 44/44 SOSORT criteria; grade of teamwork, “excellent”) included 13 patients and NOT 25 (National Health Service Rehabilitation Department: 35/44 SOSORT criteria respected; grade, “insufficient”).
TEAM was more compliant to bracing than NOT (97 ± 6% vs. 80 ± 24%) and performed nearly double the exercises (38 ± 12 vs. 20 ± 13 minutes/session). The self-reduction of bracing was significant in NOT (from 16.8 ± 3.7 to 14.8 ± 4.9 hours/day, , P<0.05); TEAM showed a significant reduction in the difficulties due to bracing (from 8.9 ± 1.4 to 3.5 ± 2.0 in 12 months on a 10-point scale, P<0.05). Pain was perceived by 55% of NOT versus 7% of TEAM (P < 0.05). The populations did not differ at the baseline studied outcomes. The absence of a good team surrounding the patient increases by five times the risk of reduced compliance to bracing (odds ratio OR 5.5 – 95% confidence interval 95CI 3.6-7.4), along with more than 15 times that of QoL problems (OR 15.7 - 95CI 13.6-17.9) and pain (OR 16.8 - 95CI 14.5-19.1).
Provided the limits of this first study on the topic, the SBTMG seems to be important for brace treatment, influencing pain, QoL and compliance (and so, presumably, final results). Future studies on the topic are advisable.
Given the uncertainty about factors that influence receipt of Clinical Excellence Awards (CEA) and recent availability of advanced research metrics, we examined the factors that predict CEA success using a convenience sample of English psychiatrists.
Observational study examining region, subspecialty, H-index, M-index, number of publications, years since registration and years in specialty.
ACCEA Nominal Roll, cross-referenced with data from the GMC's list of registered medical practitioners and Thompson's Web of Science database.
A total of 494 psychiatrists including 245 with national levels awards and a random sample with local level awards.
Main outcome measures
Receipt of local or national CEA awards in 2008 and 2009.
Of those with national awards, 126 had university contracts and 119 NHS contracts. Across all staff, years since qualification in medicine and H-index were the dominant influences. For local awards we found that years worked in the specialty was the main predictor of a CEA award with a smaller contribution from H-index. For national awards to university staff (academics) years on the medical register and publication rate were significant predictors. For national awards to NHS staff (non-academics) H-index and total cites were predictive, but these were themselves related to age.
Progression in CEAs among psychiatrists is strongly influenced by age (years spent in specialty and years on the medical register) with an additional contribution from research productivity. Currently, research impact is crudely assessed in the CEA process. We suggest that CEA committees formally assess the impact of NHS-related research using standardized research metrics which are openly available. We also suggest that supporting organizations and local trusts adhere to the rules mandated by the ACCEA.
The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a part of the National Institutes of Health, currently funds the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), a national consortium of 61 medical research institutions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. The program seeks to transform the way biomedical research is conducted, speed the translation of laboratory discoveries into treatments for patients, engage communities in clinical research efforts, and train a new generation of clinical and translational researchers.. An endeavor as ambitious and complex as the CTSA program requires high-quality evaluations in order to show that the program is well implemented, efficiently managed, and demonstrably effective. In this article, the Evaluation Key Function Committee of the CTSA Consortium presents an overall framework for evaluating the CTSA program and offers policies to guide the evaluation work. The guidelines set forth are designed to serve as a tool for education within the CTSA community by illuminating key issues and practices that should be considered during evaluation planning, implementation, and utilization. Additionally, these guidelines can provide a basis for ongoing discussions about how the principles articulated in this article can most effectively be translated into operational reality.
Objective. To determine the association between characteristics of colleges and schools of pharmacy and their rankings according to US News and World Report.
Methods. The 2008 US News and World Report, mean ranking scores (ranging from 2.0 to 5.0) for 78 US colleges and schools of pharmacy were compared with college and school characteristics, including academic program, students, faculty, and scholarship. The adjusted difference in mean ranking score associated with each characteristic was determined using a multivariate mixed linear regression model.
Results. The most powerful identified predictors of mean ranking score included the amount of grant funding (National Institutes of Health [NIH] and non-NIH funding) a college or school of pharmacy received and the yearly publication rates of its department of pharmacy (p≤0.001 for both). The adjusted mean ranking scores for colleges and schools receiving >$5 million and $1 million to $5 million in scholarly grant funding were respectively 0.77 and 0.26 points higher than those receiving none. Adjusted mean ranking scores for colleges and schools whose departments of pharmacy practice had publishing rates of >20 papers and 11 to 20 papers were respectively 0.40 and 0.17 points higher than those publishing ≤10 (p<0.05 for both).
Conclusion. The characteristic of colleges and schools of pharmacy most associated with US News and World Report rankings appears to be their scholarly productivity.
pharmacy education; ranking; assessment; teaching; publications; scholarship
During 1991–2010, 456 persons from 62 countries were provided financial support to attend the annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Winners came from 17 African, 16 Asia-Pacific, 14 Latin American and Caribbean, and 13 European and Middle Eastern countries, and from Canada and the United States. Virtually equal numbers of awards were offered to women and men. Winners were selected from U.S. academic centers (30%), foreign universities (26%), international centers, institutes or research units (30%), and approximately 5% from U.S. government agencies. Almost all winners (73 of 76, 96%) had scientific publications subsequent to receiving the travel award. Less than 10% of award winners continued their membership in the Society after their one-year complementary membership. Winners indicated that the travel awards program facilitated international exchange and fostered collaborations between Society members and international scientists.
Part-time and job-share policies may allow pharmacy practice faculty members to achieve work/life balance while pursuing their professional goals. Precedent for alternative work schedules within the health professions community can be found throughout the literature; however, little is known about part-time roles in academic pharmacy. The design and implementation of 3 different alternative faculty appointments are described and department chair and faculty perspectives are shared. Teaching, service, and scholarship responsibilities, as well as outcomes before and after changes in appointment, are described. Advantages and disadvantages, including advice for other colleges of pharmacy, are presented. Alternate appointments may be a key factor in retaining highly qualified faculty members who continue to bring their expertise to teaching, precepting, and scholarship within a college or school of pharmacy.
academia; alternative work schedule; clinical faculty members
In many countries, financial assistance is awarded to physicians who settle in an area that is designated as a shortage area to prevent unequal accessibility to primary health care. Today, however, policy makers use fairly simple methods to define health care accessibility, with physician-to-population ratios (PPRs) within predefined administrative boundaries being overwhelmingly favoured. Our purpose is to verify whether these simple methods are accurate enough for adequately designating medical shortage areas and explore how these perform relative to more advanced GIS-based methods.
Using a geographical information system (GIS), we conduct a nation-wide study of accessibility to primary care physicians in Belgium using four different methods: PPR, distance to closest physician, cumulative opportunity, and floating catchment area (FCA) methods.
The official method used by policy makers in Belgium (calculating PPR per physician zone) offers only a crude representation of health care accessibility, especially because large contiguous areas (physician zones) are considered. We found substantial differences in the number and spatial distribution of medical shortage areas when applying different methods.
The assessment of spatial health care accessibility and concomitant policy initiatives are affected by and dependent on the methodology used. The major disadvantage of PPR methods is its aggregated approach, masking subtle local variations. Some simple GIS methods overcome this issue, but have limitations in terms of conceptualisation of physician interaction and distance decay. Conceptually, the enhanced 2-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method, an advanced FCA method, was found to be most appropriate for supporting areal health care policies, since this method is able to calculate accessibility at a small scale (e.g. census tracts), takes interaction between physicians into account, and considers distance decay. While at present in health care research methodological differences and modifiable areal unit problems have remained largely overlooked, this manuscript shows that these aspects have a significant influence on the insights obtained. Hence, it is important for policy makers to ascertain to what extent their policy evaluations hold under different scales of analysis and when different methods are used.
Primary health care; Accessibility; Geographical information systems (GIS); Physician-to-population ratio (PPR); Floating catchment area (FCA)
This article describes the development, implementation, and assessment of a Center for Teaching Excellence at Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy. The purpose of the Center was to create a systematic framework to promote, enhance, and assess the scholarship of teaching and learning. Assessment of the Center's activities suggests a positive impact on the teaching abilities of faculty. This report is intended to offer other schools or colleges of pharmacy considerations for center development.
professional development; teaching; mentoring
To describe the extent of psychiatric pharmacy instruction in US pharmacy curricula, including course and faculty characteristics and mental health topics taught in clinical therapeutics-based courses.
An 11-item survey instrument (54% response) was developed and mailed to 91 colleges and schools of pharmacy.
Over 75% of colleges and schools employed a psychiatric pharmacist; however, less than 50% of faculty teaching psychiatric pharmacy content were psychiatric pharmacy specialists as defined in the study. All colleges and schools included psychiatric topics as part of a therapeutics-based course with an average of 9.5% of course content devoted to these topics. About 25% of colleges and schools offered elective didactic courses in psychiatric pharmacy. Only 2 schools required a psychiatric pharmacy advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE), but about 92% offered elective APPEs. The mean number of hours spent on lecture- and case-based instruction across all colleges and schools was highest for depression and lowest for personality disorders.
There is a need for colleges and schools of pharmacy to better identify and standardize the minimal acceptable level of didactic instruction in psychiatric pharmacy as well as the minimal level of specialty qualifications for faculty members who teach this subject.
psychiatric pharmacy; pharmacy education; curriculum; mental health
The goal of this study was to assess for a predominance of learning styles
among pharmacy students at an accredited U.S. school of pharmacy.
Following approval by the Institutional Review Board, the Index of Learning
Styles© was administered to 210 pharmacy students. The survey provides
results within 4 domains: perception, input, processing, and understanding.
Analyses were conducted to determine trends in student learning styles.
Within the four domains, 84% of students showed a preference toward sensory
perception, 66% toward visual input, and 74% toward sequential
understanding. Students showed no significant preference for active or
reflective processing. Preferences were of moderate strength for the
sensing, visual, and sequential learning styles.
Students showed preferences for sensing, visual, and sequential learning
styles with gender playing a role in learning style preferences. Faculty
should be aware, despite some preferences, a mix of learning styles exists.
To focus on the preferences found, instructors should focus teaching in a
logical progression while adding visual aids. To account for other types of
learning styles found, the instructors can offer other approaches and
provide supplemental activities for those who would benefit from them.
Further research is necessary to compare these learning styles to the
teaching styles of pharmacy preceptors and faculty at schools of
Education, Pharmacy, Graduate; Problem-Based Learning; United States
The 2008-2009 Task Force for the Recognition of Teaching Excellence was charged by the AACP Council of Faculties Leadership to examine teaching excellence by collecting best practices from colleges and schools of pharmacy, evaluating the literature to identify evidence-based criteria for excellent teaching, and recommending appropriate means to acknowledge and reward teaching excellence. This report defines teaching excellence and discusses a variety of ways to assess it, including student, alumni, peer, and self-assessment. The task force identifies important considerations that colleges and schools must address when establishing teaching recognition programs including the purpose, criteria, number and mix of awards, frequency, type of award, and method of nominating and determining awardees. The report concludes with recommendations for the academy to consider when establishing and revising teaching award programs.
teaching excellence; teaching recognition; teaching awards; pharmacy education; faculty development